The Sustainable Urban Forest

A Step-by-Step Approach

Michael Leff

The Davey Institute / USDA Forest Service USFS Philadelphia Field Station March 22, 2015

To provide feedback on this document, email Michael.Leff@davey.com or call 215-988-1635.

SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST GUIDE Page 1

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

The Sustainable Urban Forest: A Step-by-Step Approach

– Table of Contents – Page

PART I – EXPLORING THE URBAN FOREST ................................................................... 4

Overview ....................................................................................................................... 4 Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests ..................................................................................... 4 Sidebar: Recommendations from Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests ......................... 5 How to Use This Guide .................................................................................................. 5

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE ...................................................................................... 7

What Is a “Sustainable Urban Forest”? ........................................................................ 7 Sidebar: Sample Sustainability Initiatives ............................................................... 7 Sidebar: What Is a Sustainable Community? .......................................................... 8 Understanding Tree Benefits – or “Ecosystem Services” ............................................. 8 Sidebar: What Are Ecosystem Services? ............................................................... 10 Green Infrastructure in the Urban Forest ................................................................... 11 Sidebar: Trees as Green Infrastructure BMPs....................................................... 13 Refining Your Focus ..................................................................................................... 13

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY ............................................................................ 15

Why Consider Canopy Cover? ..................................................................................... 15 Sidebar: What Is ‘Tree Canopy’? ........................................................................... 15

What Is an ‘Optimal Canopy Cover Level’? ................................................................ 15 Sidebar: Tree Canopy Cover Levels and Goals for Selected Cities........................ 16 Sidebar: Search for Urban Forest Data ................................................................. 18

Setting Your Canopy Cover Goals ............................................................................... 18 Pursuing Your Canopy Cover Goals ............................................................................. 19

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION ................................................................ 21

Taking Stock ................................................................................................................ 21 Sidebar: Key Ingredients ....................................................................................... 22 Forest Resource Assessments ..................................................................................... 23

Bottom-Up: Field-Based Assessments .................................................................. 23 Complete inventories ...................................................................................... 23 Sample-based assessments ............................................................................ 24

Sidebar: Tree Inventories and Routine Management Software ........................... 24 Top-Down: Tree Canopy Assessments .................................................................. 25

National Land Cover Database (NLCD) satellite imagery ................................ 25 Aerial photo interpretation ............................................................................. 26 High-resolution aerial or satellite imagery ..................................................... 27

Other Key Ingredients ................................................................................................. 28 Plans, Practices, Programs, and Policies ............................................................... 28 Databases and Other Information ........................................................................ 29

SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST GUIDE Page 2

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK ....................................... 30

Sidebar: “We cannot separate urban forests from the people…” ....................... 30 Why Collaborate? ....................................................................................................... 30

Sidebar: “Independent action is inadequate…”.................................................... 30 Sidebar: Possible Stakeholders – and Collaborators – to Consider ...................... 32

Internal City Stakeholders and Relationships ............................................................. 34 Sidebar: Planning for Trees ................................................................................... 36

Cross-Sector Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 36 Sidebar: General Principle 3: Seek out Private and Civic Partners ...................... 38 Sidebar: Citizen Foresters in Clovis ....................................................................... 39 Sidebar: Environmental Justice: Ensuring Equitable Distribution of Resources .. 40

STEW-MAP: Visualizing – and Engaging – Stewardship across the Urban Landscape 40 Sidebar: How to STEW-MAP ................................................................................. 42 Sidebar: Communicating Your Message: “Trees Are the Key” Online Toolkit ..... 43

Regional Collaboration: Developing a Strategy across Borders ................................. 43 Chicago Region Trees Initiative for the Seven-County Metropolitan Area .......... 44 Sacramento Greenprint ........................................................................................ 46 Sidebar: Greenprint Goals for Growth ............................................................ 47 Wisconsin Statewide Urban Forest Strategy ........................................................ 47 Sidebar: Working Well in Wisconsin ............................................................... 48

PART VI – CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION & MEASURING SUCCESS [N/A] ................. 49

Aim for These Targets ................................................................................................. 49

Trees and Forest Vegetation T1 – Relative tree canopy cover T2 – Age diversity (Size class distribution) T3 – Species diversity T4 – Species suitability T5 – Publicly owned trees (trees managed “intensively”) T6 – Publicly owned natural areas (trees managed “extensively”) T7 – Trees on private property T8 – Environmental justice and equity

Community Framework C1 – Municipal agency cooperation C2 – Involvement of large private and institutional landholders C3 – Green industry cooperation C4 – Citizen involvement and neighborhood action C5 – Cross-sector interaction C6 – General appreciation of trees as a community resource C7 – Regional collaboration

Resource Management Approach R1 – Tree inventory R2 – Canopy cover assessment

SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST GUIDE Page 3

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

R3 – Municipality-wide urban forest management plan R4 – Municipality-wide urban forest funding R5 – Municipal urban forestry staffing and training R6 – Tree establishment planning and implementation R7 – Planting site suitability R8 – Tree protection policy development and enforcement R9 – Maintenance of publicly owned, “intensively” managed trees R10 – Management of publicly owned natural areas R11 – Tree risk management R12 – Urban wood and green waste utilization R13 – Native vegetation

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN ............................................... 51

Setting Priorities and Creating an Action Plan ........................................................... 51 Assessing Risk and Planning for Change ..................................................................... 51

Climate change...................................................................................................... 51 Sea level rise ......................................................................................................... 52 Wildfire ................................................................................................................. 53 Pests, disease, and invasive plants ....................................................................... 54 Natural lifecycle changes ...................................................................................... 54 Budget cycles and other economic considerations .............................................. 54

Sidebar: The Financially Stable Sustainable Urban Forest.............................. 55 Changing demographics ........................................................................................ 55

Sidebar: Taking No Chances with Risks ........................................................... 57 Monitoring for Urban Forest Change and Program Performance .............................. 57

Why monitor ......................................................................................................... 58 Ways to monitor ................................................................................................... 59 Linking monitoring to community outreach ......................................................... 60 Planning ahead for data management and analysis ............................................. 60

APPENDIX A –RESOURCES (“Other Key Ingredients,” referenced in Part IV)

Plans, Practices, Programs, and Policies ............................................................... 62 Databases and Other Information ........................................................................ 67

PART I – EXPLORING THE URBAN FOREST Page 4

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART I – EXPLORING THE URBAN FOREST Overview

Increasingly, cities and communities of all sizes recognize the importance of their tree cover and

the need for plans to manage that natural resource. Far fewer actually have such plans in place,

and where they do exist, many of those plans fall short in one way or another. This guide is

designed primarily to help municipalities assess the state of their urban forest, identify issues,

and chart a path forward, step by step, toward long-term sustainability. It can also be adapted by

any “community” – broadly defined to encompass any large public or private landowner or

manager – that seeks to pursue a similar path in its realm of responsibility.

Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests

In April 2011, the U.S. Forest Service convened an intensive three-day meeting “to explore the

implications of integrated natural and built urban environments and their possibilities for the

future.” With peer input, the Forest Service had assembled a national task force to guide the

process, including 25 visionary and respected municipal and state officials, national and local

nonprofit leaders, researchers, urban planners, and foundation and industry representatives.

According to the definition set forth in the resulting report, Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests – A

National Call to Action:

Urban forests are systems of trees, other vegetation, and water within any urban area. They can be understood as dynamic green infrastructure that provides cities and municipalities with

environmental, economic, and social benefits. Urban forests are forests for people.

As that definition makes clear, there’s more to the urban forest than just trees. Unlike a lone

specimen in a highly manicured landscape, the urban forest is a system of vegetation – including

trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants – as well as water and overall hydrology – and in fact, the

surrounding air and certainly the underlying soil – on both public and private property. For that

matter, wildlife, people, and the built environment are part of that forest system, too.

An urbanized area may not be a natural ecosystem, but it is nevertheless an ecosystem – defined

as “a system involving the interactions between a community of living organisms in a particular

area and its nonliving environment.”1 In many places, the urban forest is perhaps the most

important component of what characterizes the “urban ecosystem” and assures its viability.

The Vibrant Cities report outlines a dozen recommendations, along with suggested action steps

for each one. The need for municipal “how to” guidance on achieving a sustainable urban forest

evolved from Recommendation #12. (See sidebar [BELOW] for a list of all recommendations and

more information on the initiative.)

To move forward toward that goal, the U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station set about

developing this step-by-step guide for municipal managers and others who are involved in the

planning and management of the urban forest. In addition to trees on public land, this guide also

PART I – EXPLORING THE URBAN FOREST Page 5

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

covers trees on private property, which represents the majority of land area in most

municipalities and as such is a critical component of the urban forest.

How to Use This Guide

Each municipality has its own array of assets, liabilities, goals, and concerns, as well as a great

deal of regional variation. The approach outlined here is intended to be straightforward,

methodical, and comprehensive, yet flexible enough that any community can use. In addition to

this introductory section, the basic structure of the guide is as follows:

Part II, Setting the Stage, provides background on several key concepts: a definition of the

“sustainable urban forest,” and how that fits in the context of a sustainable community; the value

of tree benefits, or “ecosystem services”; an introduction to “green infrastructure”; and guidance

on how to define your overall scope.

Part III, Covering the Canopy, addresses the issue of “optimal tree canopy cover” – showing how

that varies from place to place, explaining the importance of quality of canopy cover in addition

to overall quantity, and discussing how to set and achieve a canopy cover goal that suits your

needs and location.

Recommendations from Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests: A National Call to Action

1. Create a national education and awareness campaign.

2. Foster urban forestry and natural resources stewardship and volunteerism.

3. Create sustainable jobs in urban forestry and green infrastructure.

4. Cultivate partnerships between public and private sectors.

5. Develop new public administration models for urban ecosystems.

6. Create comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Urban Regional Natural Resource Plans.

7. Integrate federal agencies’ green infrastructure goals.

8. Establish energy efficiency programs that emphasize the use of trees.

9. Ensure equal access to urban forestry and green infrastructure resources.

10. Support collaborative urban ecosystem-focused research.

11. Encourage open access to and use of social assessment tools.

12. Establish national Vibrant Cities Standards.

For more information on the Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests initiative and to access the final report, go to http://treesarethekey.org. That online resource center provides a communications toolkit developed by the Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition (SUFC) as the culmination of the original process, now under the broader banner of “Vibrant Communities.”

PART I – EXPLORING THE URBAN FOREST Page 6

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Part IV, Gathering the Information, presents the items you’ll need to consider and assemble to

develop a plan suited to the particulars of your situation. This part includes the essential baseline

assessments of the forest resource itself, as well as a wide range of tools – plans, practices,

programs, and policies – to guide your efforts and help you reach your goals.

Part V, Constructing the Community Framework, identifies key partners you’ll need to engage

for a successful outcome, including representatives from all sectors – government agencies,

nonprofit organizations, private industry, utilities, large landholders, and diverse community

groups and local neighborhood activists.

Part VI, Conducting the Evaluation & Measuring Success, uses the elements assembled above to

evaluate your current standing – assets and liabilities – and track progress on numerous targets

within three broad categories: (1) Trees and Forest Vegetation, including such factors as canopy

cover, age distribution, and species mix, (2) Community Framework, such as collaboration

across public agencies and cross-sector partnerships, and (3) Resource Management Approach, such as funding, staffing, and assorted policies.

Part VII, Developing & Implementing the Plan, will provide an overview of the many

considerations involved in setting and prioritizing specific goals based on the self-evaluation you

performed in Part VI, helping you develop strategies for reaching those goals. Additional

essential elements to be covered here include ongoing risk assessment, planning for change, and

monitoring performance.

Appendix A, Resources, includes links to many helpful resources that match the list of “Key Ingredients” outlined in Part IV.

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 7

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE What Is a “Sustainable Urban Forest”?

Due to various economic, social, and environmental stressors, the push for sustainability has

gained considerable momentum in recent years, reflected in a proliferation of sustainability plans

and programs ranging from the local to global level. (See examples in box [BELOW].) This

Sustainable Urban Forest Guide can either be used to complement broader sustainability

programs by expanding on the urban forest components, or it can function as a standalone guide

for any audience that is primarily concerned with the forest resource.

In Part I, Exploring the Urban Forest, we defined and described the urban forest itself, but what

makes the urban forest “sustainable”? Essentially, for our purposes:

The Sustainable Urban Forest includes everything needed to assure that the entire forest system achieves and maintains a healthy overall extent and structure sufficient to provide the

desired benefits, or ecosystem services, over time. (Of course, this oversimplification may beg the larger issues of global sustainability – including,

for example, the concept that all water, nutrient, and energy input/output equations must balance

at all scales – including time. For more on those considerations, which are outside the scope of

this document, visit the Stockholm Resilience Centre: www.stockholmresilience.org.)

Despite our more narrow focus here, it’s important never to lose sight of the broader view that

places the urban forest in the context of overall sustainability and a sustainable community. This

can include such intersecting areas as waste reduction and recycling, stormwater management,

energy use, air and water quality, wildlife habitat, public health, economic viability, social

equity, overall livability, and so on. Clearly, the sustainable urban forest fits well within that

conceptual framework.

Sample Sustainability Initiatives

STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities) program for overall municipal performance (www.starcommunities.org)

Sustainable Sites Initiative guidelines focused on landscape design, construction, and maintenance (www.sustainablesites.org)

LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) green building certification program, U.S. Green Building Council (www.usgbc.org/leed)

“Envision” rating system for civil infrastructure, Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (www.sustainableinfrastructure.org)

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (www.iclei.org)

Green City Index global comparisons on environmental performance, Economist Intelligence Unit, Siemens (http://www.siemens.com/entry/cc/en/greencityindex.htm)

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 8

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

At the local municipal level, of course, the underpinning financial resources themselves are often

in great need of a sustainable supply. Historically, when budgets are strained or shrinking, many

municipalities have viewed adequate care of the urban forest, beyond essential tree risk

management, as a luxury they can’t afford. But that picture is changing with increased awareness

of the wide-ranging benefits of trees, especially when a dollar value is placed on those benefits.

Recognizing and valuing the tangible services provided by the urban forest, it’s clear that there’s

much to be gained by a healthy forest – and real, measurable, and inevitable costs if the

investment is not made to maintain it.

Fortunately, whereas other forms of municipal “grey” infrastructure – such as treatment plants or

stormwater systems – often address a single functional purpose, green infrastructure, including

the urban forest, can play a role in advancing numerous sustainability goals.

Consider Philadelphia’s “Greenworks” sustainability framework, which includes 15 specific

targets in five broad areas: Energy, Environment, Equity, Economy, and Engagement. One of

those targets in particular – #11 – states “increase tree coverage toward 30 percent canopy in all

neighborhoods” (up from the current citywide canopy cover of about 20 percent). Meeting that

single Greenworks target would help advance half of all the other targets in all five categories.

For example, by planting more trees on school grounds – just one of more than a dozen

actions planned to meet Target #11 – the City will also help reduce citywide building energy

use (Target #2), reduce greenhouse gas emissions (#5), improve air quality (#6), enhance

green infrastructure (#8), provide outdoor amenities (#9), and create green jobs (#14). Not

surprisingly, the only other individual actions in the plan that stand to benefit as many other

targets as increased tree canopy cover does are those involving parks and other green space.2

Understanding Tree Benefits – or “Ecosystem Services”

Many urban dwellers can name the downside of trees, ranging from lifted sidewalks to storm

damage. There is often less awareness and appreciation of the many benefits of trees, other than

their natural beauty. Those benefits are varied and substantial, and impact all three areas of the

so-called “triple bottom-line” – economic, environmental, and social. For example, consider this

comprehensive though by no means exhaustive array of benefits:

What Is a Sustainable Community?

The path to sustainability is different for every community – but the common elements are a healthy environment, a strong economy, and the well-being of the people living in the community. When sustainability areas are addressed in tandem with each other, they have a powerful, positive effect on the quality of life and future of a community. By overlapping work in these areas, efficiencies emerge and better results are achieved.

– STAR (Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities), www.starcommunities.org

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 9

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Economic benefits

Save energy and cut costs for summer cooling (shade) and winter heating (windbreak).

Supply wood products – including urban areas, when trees are removed.

Increase property values, benefiting homeowners and increasing local tax revenues.

Boost commercial district activity.

Support green industry jobs.

Reduce costs to taxpayers for traditional “grey” infrastructure.

Environmental benefits

Improve air quality by absorbing and filtering pollutants and providing oxygen.

Reduce greenhouse gases by capturing carbon as well as saving energy.

Help manage stormwater, reduce flooding, and improve water quality.

Mitigate air temperature extremes and reduce urban “heat island” effect.

Support wildlife populations and overall biodiversity.

Reduce ultraviolet radiation levels.

Social benefits

Promote public health and well-being

Encourage physical activity by creating attractive, shaded outdoor spaces.

Discourage crime and create safe places to gather.

Strengthen community engagement and revitalize neighborhoods.

Promote social equity and environmental justice for neglected communities.

Supply healthy edibles – fruit and nuts.

Provide solace, spiritual sustenance, and a sense of place.

Those myriad tree benefits can all be considered “ecosystem services,” an important concept that

has gained prominence for its ability to reveal the hidden value of trees and other forms of

“natural capital.”

(See sidebar [BELOW].)

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 10

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Of course, many of those ecosystem services are not strictly for people – though benefits to other

living creatures also benefit people, as we all depend on a complex and interconnected living

Earth. Moreover, the natural capital that supplies those ecosystem goods and services must not

be treated merely as resources that can be depleted faster than they’re created – a mandate that

essentially defines sustainability.

Identifying and appreciating the ecosystem services provided by the urban forest is a start. But

putting a dollar value on those services can help turn appreciation into action. For that reason,

various analysis and assessment tools have gained traction in recent years – in particular the i-Tree tools (www.itreetools.org) developed by the U.S. Forest Service, to be discussed in more

detail in Part IV, Gathering the Information. Because budget constraints are often a major

obstacle to sustainable urban forest management, anything that can help secure adequate and

stable funding is a huge boon. The i-Tree tools can provide the data needed to quantify both the

state of the urban forest (in terms of tree count, canopy, condition, etc.) and – potentially even

more important from a budgeting perspective – the economic value of the ecosystem services

provided by the urban forest, now and in the future, depending on management actions taken.

By putting a dollar value on such ecosystem services as energy savings, carbon reduction, air

quality, stormwater management, and various health benefits, i-Tree assessments can help

persuade decision-makers that maintaining and growing the urban forest is not an optional

amenity for flush times, but an integral element of the city’s basic infrastructure to sustain human

health and well-being. Based on an i-Tree assessment, for example, the 2012 Pittsburgh Urban

Forest Master Plan put the annual economic benefit from the city’s trees at more than $7.2-

What Are Ecosystem Services?

Ecosystem services are often defined as the direct and indirect contributions of natural systems to human well-being.

Four categories of ecosystem services:

1. Provisioning services describe the material or energy outputs from ecosystems. These include food, water, various raw materials, and medicinal resources.

2. Regulating services create and maintain healthy environmental conditions by influencing such things as climate, weather extremes, pests, disease, air and water quality, soil fertility, and many others.

3. Supporting services provide habitat for plants and animals, and maintain genetic biodiversity, which is essential to the health and adaptability of species.

4. Cultural services connect people with ecosystems. Cultural services include spiritual, recreational, educational, emotional, and physical benefits, as well as economic benefits through cultural and eco-tourism.

– Source: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), http://www.teebweb.org/resources/ecosystem-services/

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 11

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

million. By comparing that to overall tree-related expenditures, the calculation was used to

demonstrate that every dollar invested in street tree care actually yields a net financial gain of

nearly twice that amount.3 Using a similar analysis, New York City put that return at $5.60 in

benefits for every dollar spent on tree planting and care.4 In addition, many urban trees are not

planted, but regenerate naturally in many locations, substantially reducing planting costs.

Monetary valuation of ecosystem services shows that trees and other components of green

infrastructure can reduce expenditures on the conventional grey infrastructure that would

otherwise be necessary to meet clean air and water standards. Those mandated standards can be

achieved with trees more efficiently and cost effectively than through some traditional methods.

While trees alone are not sufficient, they are a key piece of the solution and can yield significant

returns on investment.

Green Infrastructure in the Urban Forest

Green infrastructure utilizes vegetation to provide some of the functions of conventional grey

infrastructure, such as water treatment plants and stormwater management systems, but with

additional environmental, economic, and social benefits. Broadly defined, every tree and the

entire urban forest can be considered green infrastructure, because they offer benefits across that

“triple bottom line.” (It’s worth noting that we often turn to green infrastructure to compensate

for natural resources that have been compromised by human development and only partially

remedied by grey infrastructure in the first place.)

In the environmental realm, green infrastructure is often designed to address urban stormwater

issues. The goals of those installations – often referred to as stormwater best management

practices (BMPs) – are to capture runoff, allow infiltration, promote evapotranspiration, and

otherwise reduce or eliminate stormwater flow to waterways or sewage treatment plants.

Trees can contribute to those goals in a number of ways:

Trees reduce stormwater runoff by capturing and storing rainfall in their canopy and releasing water into the atmosphere.

Trees draw moisture from the soil ground surface, thereby increasing soil water storage potential.

Tree roots and leaf litter create soil conditions that promote the infiltration of rainwater into the soil.

Trees help slow down and temporarily store runoff and reduce pollutants by taking up nutrients and other pollutants from soils and water through their roots.

Trees transform pollutants into less harmful substances.

Despite those stormwater benefits, most BMPs that incorporate vegetation have relied primarily

on herbaceous vegetation with few trees and shrubs. Some engineers and designers have been

concerned that tree roots, branches, and leaves will compromise the effectiveness or stability of

the installation. To address those concerns, the Center for Watershed Protection and the USDA

Forest Service collaborated with stormwater engineers, foresters, arborists, soil scientists,

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 12

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

landscape architects, and other experts to develop improved designs for stormwater management

practices including trees, or so-called “stormwater forestry practices.” A major goal of these

designs is to harness the numerous environmental benefits of trees to increase the effectiveness

of stormwater practices, while providing other benefits to the community, such as cleaner air,

cooling and shade, aesthetics, wildlife habitat, and public safety and health improvements. The

list below shows many of those successful practices, including links to the conceptual designs:

Wooded wetland Emergent pond/wetland system Bioretention and bioinfiltration facilities Alternating side slope plantings Tree check dams Forested filter strip Multi-zone filter strip Linear storm water tree pit Stormwater treatment dry ponds

[Source: http://www.forestsforwatersheds.org/reduce-stormwater/]

Other BMP types that incorporate trees into sites that are more intensely “urban” can be found in

the resources listed in the box [BELOW], along with additional guidance on other facets of green

infrastructure.

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 13

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Refining Your Focus

In the broadest sense, there is no hard and fast boundary to define the outer edge of the typical

urban forest. The surrounding regional landscape impacts the same ecosystem services supplied

within the urban core. Moreover, pests, diseases, and invasive species spread easily across the

entire rural-to-urban gradient unrestricted by property boundaries. For those reasons, planning

must always occur in the context of the larger landscape, and urban forest managers should take

every opportunity to engage and collaborate with their counterparts in the surrounding region, as

will be discussed in more detail in Part V, Constructing the Community Framework.

Trees as Green Infrastructure BMPs

Stormwater to Street Trees: Engineering Urban Forests for Stormwater Management – Useful information on various BMP types that incorporate trees, including tree trenches with structural soil or cells, interconnected curbside stormwater tree pits, permeable pavement, forested bioswales, and designs for “green streets.” (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/stormwater2streettrees.pdf)

Control Stormwater Runoff with Trees – Includes pointers on maximizing the stormwater management potential of trees in BMPs and other sites, from the Center for Urban Forest Research, USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station. (http://www.forestsforwatersheds.org/storage/CUFR_182_UFfactsheet4.pdf )

Types of Green Infrastructure – Describes and illustrates stormwater swales, curb “bumpouts,” planters, rain barrels, green roofs, wetlands, and other BMP types that may or may not include trees. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/combined_sewer_overflow_bmps.shtml)

Watershed Forestry Resource Guide – Covers a wide range of related information, including a section on “How Do We Measure and Provide ‘Credit’ for Stormwater Runoff Reduction by Trees?”, which outlines a stormwater credit system based on reducing the stormwater management requirements a developer has to meet in exchange for conserving forests or using site design techniques that reduce the amount of paved surfaces created. (http://www.forestsforwatersheds.org/reduce-stormwater/)

Green City, Clean Waters – Philadelphia’s 25-year plan to protect and enhance its watersheds by managing stormwater with innovative green infrastructure. The Philadelphia Water Department developed the innovative program to provide a clear pathway to a sustainable future while strengthening the utility, broadening its mission, and complying with environmental laws and regulations. (http://www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/documents_and_data/cso_long_term_control_plan, http://phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/green_infrastructure)

PART II – SETTING THE STAGE Page 14

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

In practical terms, however, those who are responsible for urban forest management must

prioritize their focus to the area or sites they can influence most directly – whether at a county,

municipality, or neighborhood level, or even just within the bounds of a college campus or some

other large property.

Notice the emphasis on influence, not control. To hope to achieve genuine sustainability – that is,

the ability to reach and sustain a vigorous and extensive urban forest – you need to consider all

of the trees and forest resources within the defined area, not just street trees or even all public

trees. So municipal urban forest programs must include goals and actions targeting private

property as well, which is often where the majority of trees and amount of urban land cover are

located. Collaborative partnerships are extremely important in this respect. Within any

community, there are typically individuals, groups, and organizations that can influence private

property owners. That doesn’t let the municipality off the hook, however; there are many other

measures – outreach, incentives, regulations – that it can take to build support for the urban

forest and guide actions on private property.

In any case, the first step toward a sustainable urban forest is to define your focus area – and

mark it on a map.

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY Page 15

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY Why Consider Canopy Cover?

Tree canopy cover represents the “footprint” of the urban forest. As many forest ecosystem

services (discussed in Part II, Setting the Stage) are directly related to the amount of healthy and

functioning leaves, the proportion of land covered by tree canopies – typically expressed as

percent canopy cover – serves as a simple measure of the extent of the urban forest and the

magnitude of services it provides. It’s an imperfect measure, to be sure, but it can be readily

assessed, easily communicated, and highly useful for setting goals, prioritizing actions, and

tracking progress.

It’s important to consider all trees and forest resources in your area of interest. If your focus

encompasses the entire urban area within a municipality, that means not just public trees on

streets, in parks, and at municipal facilities, but those on private property as well. Assessing,

mapping, and analyzing percent canopy cover – in total and by selected focus areas – allows you

to capture and share that full picture. The information that can be gleaned from such efforts

serves multiple purposes, including:

Adopting an overall tree canopy cover goal for the municipality.

Setting finer canopy goals for individual neighborhoods or other management areas.

Quantifying tree benefits, or ecosystem services.

Prioritizing locations where tree canopy cover can be strategically increased to enhance those services.

Identifying critical canopy cover for preservation or protection from development.

What Is an ‘Optimal Canopy Cover Level’?

This is a difficult question, as there is no set tree canopy cover level that would be considered

“optimal” everywhere. Each municipality must adopt its own goals, depending on a number of

considerations that are unique to its particular circumstances, including climate, geography,

specific needs, community preferences, desired ecosystem services, land cover and land use

patterns, resources, and other factors. (For a range of canopy cover levels and goals, see table

[BELOW].)

What Is ‘Tree Canopy’?

An individual tree’s “canopy” is the total amount of leaves and branches on its stems or trunk – which would intercept rainfall, for example. Collectively, “tree canopy cover” is the footprint of land covered by the combined leaves, branches, and trunks of all standing trees in a given area when viewed from above. In the latter context, which is the focus of our concern, an area’s tree canopy cover is often called simply “tree canopy.” In an urban setting, it’s usually referred to as urban tree canopy.

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY Page 16

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Of course, it’s not always done that way. In many cases, tree canopy cover goals have been set

by political fiat or educated guess, rather than methodical analysis. Setting ambitious canopy

cover goals does have its advantages – such as communicating a simple message, engaging the

public, motivating officials, securing funding, and encouraging stewardship. And more canopy

cover is generally better, provided you have the means to maintain it – not to be underestimated,

since tree planting is in a sense only the beginning of the cycle of costs involved.

However, it’s far better to base those canopy cover goals on a solid understanding of two things:

the current status of the urban forest and the desired future state – that is, what you hope to gain

by achieving those goals. In Part IV, Gathering the Information, we’ll present the main options

for assessing the forest resource, including field-based assessments and aerial imagery. In the

discussion below, we’ll focus on the second part of that equation – what you hope to gain, and

the various considerations involved.

Always remember that the canopy cover goal itself is not the be-all and end-all of sustainable

urban forestry. Equally important are the many elements that go into setting that goal and the

steps that are taken not only to achieve and maintain it, but even just to strive for it. In addition,

bear in mind that the most meaningful measure of tree canopy cover in a given area at any given

time may be its relative canopy cover – that is, the extent of canopy cover relative to the desired

amount, or the particular goal for that area based on its optimal potential. There are no simple

answers to these complex questions. But it’s worth embarking on the quest.

City, State/Province5

Initial Canopy Cover Level Canopy Cover Goal

UTC Cover Year Assessed UTC Cover Target Date

Annapolis, MD 42.0% 2006 50% 30-year plan (2036)

Asbury Park, NJ 22.6% 2013 Increase Ongoing

Atlanta, GA 47.9% 2008 Increase Ongoing

Austin, TX 32.0% 2006 40% Ongoing

Baltimore, MD 20.0% 2007 40% 2036

Boston, MA 29.0% 2006 49% 10-year plan (2016)

Cambridge, Ontario 27.0% 2013 N/A 2050

Cedar Lake, IN 33.8% 2011 Increase Ongoing

Chicago, IL 17.2% 2007 25% Ongoing

Denver, CO 16.4% 2010 31% 20-year plan (2025)

Detroit, MI 22.5% 2008 40% Ongoing

Tree Canopy Cover Levels and Goals for Selected Cities

The table below illustrates existing canopy cover levels for various U.S. and two Canadian cities, as well as citywide canopy cover goals where available. According to one recent study, national results indicate that urban tree canopy (UTC) in the United States is on the decline at a rate of about 4 million trees per year.1 A comparable loss of urban forests has become a growing concern for municipalities worldwide as urbanization has led to land-use conversion, compounded by other pressures, such as pests and climate change. Setting ambitious but realistic canopy cover goals and developing the programs to support them are essential steps in reversing that downward trend.

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY Page 17

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Easton, MD 27.0% 2014 40% Ongoing

Evanston, IL 36.9% 2010 Increase Ongoing

Fort Bragg, NC 67.1% 2011 70% Ongoing

Fort Wayne, IN 29.0% 2011 Increase Ongoing

Goshen, IN 22.0% 2012 30% Ongoing

Howard Beach, NY 8.5% 2013 Increase Ongoing

Indianapolis, IN 13.8% 2008 19% 10-year plan (2018)

Hartford, CT 25.1% 2013 35% Ongoing

Holyoke, MA 26.5% 2014 30% Ongoing

Las Vegas, NV 8.6% 2012 20% 2035

Leesburg, VA 27.0% 2006 40% 25-year plan (2031)

Lexington, KY 24.6% 2013 30% Ongoing

Los Angeles, CA 21.0% 2006 28% 2040

Louisville, KY 37.1% 2013 40% Ongoing

Macedonia, OH 39.0% 2013 Increase Ongoing

Milwaukee, WI 21.6% 2008 40% Ongoing

New Haven, CT 38.0% 2009 Add 10K trees 5-year plan (2014)

New Orleans, LA 23.3% 2009 Increase Ongoing

New York, NY 24.0% 2006 30% 2036

Philadelphia, PA 20.0% 2011 30% 15-year plan (2025)

Phoenix, AZ 8.0-10.0% 2007 25% 2030

Pittsburgh, PA 40.0% 2011 60% 20-year plan (2031)

Port Angels, WA 27.3% 2011 40% Ongoing

Portland, OR 29.9% 2014 33% Ongoing

Providence, RI 23.0% 2007 30% 10-year plan (2020)

Richfield, OH 58.0% 2013 Increase Ongoing

Sacramento, CA 5.2-15.4% 1998 35% Ongoing

San Francisco, CA 13.7% 2012 20% 20-year plan (2034)

Seattle, WA 23.0% 2007 30% 30-year plan (2037)

Stow, OH 41.1% 2013 Increase Ongoing

Tacoma, WA 19.0% 2010 30% 20-year plan (2030)

Vancouver, BC 18.6% 2010 28% 20-year plan (2030)

Washington, DC 35.0% 2009 40% 20-year plan (2029)

West Memphis, AR 18.1% 2012 24% Ongoing

Whitpain, PA 43.0% 2012 Increase Ongoing

Winnetka, IL 52.7% 2010 Increase Ongoing

Ypsilanti, MI 36.6% 2012 Increase Ongoing

Note: Assessment and target dates may not match length of plans due to timing of goal establishment.

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY Page 18

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Setting Your Canopy Cover Goals

Whatever tree canopy cover goal you set for your community must be attainable and sustainable.

“Ambitious” and “inspirational” are important traits. But if a goal is impossibly beyond reach, it

leads only to public disappointment, staff frustration, volunteer burnout, funder fatigue, and the

like.

The first consideration in setting challenging but reasonable goals should be the local or regional

geographic framework. That means working within the natural limits of the environment. It

doesn’t mean that the “natural” regional landscape should dictate your decisions; in fact, in

historically non-forested areas, urbanization can actually lead to increased canopy cover. Still,

geography should certainly inform the decision-making process. Similarly, you need to consider

the interrelations of the forest resource across the full rural-suburban-urban gradient, or whatever

spectrum characterizes your locale.

The distribution of tree canopy cover is generally not – and needn’t be – uniform across a

municipality or even identical in every neighborhood. A single overarching canopy goal has its

merits; for one thing, it is easier to communicate and promote. But at a functional level, it’s more

important to break that down into more meaningful pieces, through a finer-scale analysis – by

census tract, parcel, land ownership, sub-watershed, or other boundaries or land-use

designations.

Always remember that whatever percent canopy cover goals you set – and whether municipality-

wide or at a single block level – those are only stand-in metrics for the actual benefits or

ecosystem services you hope to gain from that tree cover. So at root, the quality of the urban

forest is as important as the number of trees that comprise it. “Quality” in that sense covers tree

health, age and species diversity, strategic location, and other such factors – all intended to

maximize the desired ecosystem services, whatever they may be.

To set meaningful canopy cover goals, you’ll need to consider your municipality’s particular

needs, which can vary widely. Depending on the setting, you may be most concerned about heat

reduction, energy savings, stormwater runoff, air quality, public health, economic development,

environmental justice, social well-being, or some combination of those and other factors. That

“needs assessment” could influence how many trees must be added, what kind of trees, and

where to situate them. For example, to cut energy use for cooling a building, large trees must be

Search for Urban Forest Data

Urban forest data are being collected from across the United States based on top-down aerial approaches and bottom-up field data collection. (See Part IV, Gathering the Information.) The U.S. Forest Service offers links to that data as well as reports prepared at the state, county, municipal, and local community or place level. Visit this website to explore states or communities of interest and see what data are available: www.nrs.fs.fed.us/data/urban

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY Page 19

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

placed close enough to shade the structure, particularly on the west side; to boost economic

development, trees can be added to barren commercial strips, which invites more leisurely

shopping; for stormwater management, engineered tree trenches may be required, and so on.

Determining your mix of motivators and desired outcomes will require engaging a broad array of

stakeholders, ranging from municipal agencies to community groups and individual residents. If

a municipal or regional sustainability plan exists, many of those concerns may already have been

identified – and, as noted previously, the urban forest can be managed to advance multiple

sustainability goals, not just those that are specifically focused on parks and green space. Armed

with all that information, you’ll be better able to plan the particulars.

Pursuing Your Canopy Cover Goals

As noted above and detailed in Part IV, Gathering the Information, a comprehensive forest

resource assessment is an essential first step in the goal-setting process. In addition to aerial

canopy cover studies (the “top down” approach), an overall assessment can include information

gleaned through tree inventories and other field-based (“bottom up”) data collection. Taken

together, that information will enable you to identify and consider opportunities for advancing

your canopy cover goals.

In addition to studying the canopy level across the city as a whole, it can be even more helpful to

analyze canopy cover in finer detail – classifying different areas by land use (industrial,

commercial, residential, etc.), census tract, congressional district, or whatever might inform

planning across various properties and land uses citywide. That could help you to determine,

first, where additional trees might go, then to decide where they should go, and finally to

prioritize where they will go.

New approaches and tools for conducting an urban tree canopy analysis, or UTC study, are being

developed to facilitate such prioritization efforts, including a protocol from the USDA Forest

Service. Designed initially for New York City and tested more recently in Baltimore and

Chicago, this basic process can be readily adapted to other locations. (The City of Austin has

also utilized this method to develop a tree planting prioritization analysis and map for guiding

plantings on public property, which can be viewed here:

http://austin.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingTextLegend/index.html?appid=1d073b8019fd4c4

19e4f81eb9e274af5.)6

That approach is based on a fairly straightforward analytical framework that involves using

detailed land cover mapping as well as various social, economic, and ecological datasets to

explore “plantable” space – both existing and potential.7 Essentially, this involves a “3 Ps”

framework for establishing goals based on these questions:8

1. What is physically possible – that is, what lands can biologically support trees?

2. What is socially preferable? (For example, while you might be able to grow a tree on a

pitcher’s mound, that would not be socially acceptable.)

3. What is the potential plantable space?

PART III – COVERING THE CANOPY Page 20

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Arriving at the ultimate “potential” plantable space is not simply a matter of taking the

“possible” and subtracting what’s not “preferable.” For one thing, land cover can change – in

either direction: Buildings can be razed, pavement can be removed; fields and forests can be

developed, and so on. For that matter, while a tree may never be at home on a pitcher’s mound,

other social preferences can change as well. Most importantly, fiscal resources are limited and

will inevitably place limits on what can reasonably be considered true “potential” – which

requires careful consideration of how and where to focus those resources for maximum – and

equitable – impact.

Whatever tools or methods you use to tease apart the overall tree canopy, the resulting

information can guide decisions aimed at increasing tree benefits on all lands, including private

as well as public property, based on flexible parameters of your own choosing. While that

process may be primarily intended to find optimal places to add trees, it’s equally useful for

identifying high-priority locations for tree protection and stewardship, which are just as

important to preserving and growing the urban forest. After all, there’s no way to grow the

overall canopy cover if you’re losing trees as fast as you’re planting them. (Obviously, losses

from normal mortality and routine removals can also be expected and must be factored into the

equation.)

The kind of parameters you might choose to guide your analysis can include anything that can be

mapped – such as floodplain zones, impervious surfaces, open space, underserved communities,

owner-occupied housing, heat island hot spots, etc. And the decisions you reach will reflect your

municipality’s particular needs and preferences, including desired ecosystem services, as

described above. As you work in finer detail, you will be able to use all that information in

determining specifics such as species selection, age distribution, tree placement, even

development of possible ordinances and other policies, as well as many other such decisions.

Be sure to take full advantage of data already collected by other entities that might play into this

decision-making process. In Chicago, for example, there’s the Chicago Wilderness Green

Infrastructure Vision, a map of high quality natural areas and opportunities for connectivity, and

the Oak Recovery Plan mapping initiative, which identifies existing oak stands of one acre or

more.9

But spatial and numerical data alone will not suffice. Any attempt to set priorities must involve

extensive input from diverse stakeholders – including individuals and organizations, across all

sectors – and seeking to find opportunities for collaboration among them. That approach is

covered in more detail in the Part V, Constructing the Community Framework. Further on, in

Part VII, Developing & Implementing the Plan, we’ll outline a process for considering how all

these pieces might fit into the design of your overall Sustainable Urban Forest Plan.

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 21

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Taking Stock

To plan where you want to go and how to get there, you must first know where you are. So the

first step toward a sustainable urban forest is to understand your municipality’s current situation,

both on the ground and on paper (or electronic equivalent).

The box below lists the key ingredients to assemble so that you can take stock of what you may

already have and what you may need to develop. In Part VI, Conducting the Evaluation & Measuring Success, you’ll use those ingredients to evaluate your municipality’s urban forest on

numerous targets in three broad categories: (1) Trees and Forest Vegetation, (2) Community Framework, and (3) Resource Management Approach. With that baseline information in hand,

you’ll be able to gauge your strengths, identify the most pressing or promising areas for

improvement, and then make the changes you choose as you move toward a sustainable urban

forestry program that suits your situation.

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 22

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Many of those ingredients are likely to be absent or inaccessible, and not all of them will be

needed in every setting. Nevertheless, by assembling a compendium with as many of those

elements as possible you will build the foundation for baseline evaluation, planning, action, and

monitoring. And you will also create a comprehensive multi-purpose reference for your team and

those who follow after you. For now, just round up the pieces, and make note of gaps to be filled

as opportunities arise.

Key Ingredients Forest Resource Assessments

□ Field-based inventories and assessments (“bottom-up” approach) Tree inventory options

Complete inventory Sample-based assessment

i-Tree Eco i-Tree Streets

□ Tree canopy assessments (“top-down” approach) National Land Cover Database (NLCD) satellite imagery

i-Tree Vue Aerial photo interpretation

i-Tree Canopy High-resolution aerial or satellite imagery

Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) study Plans, Practices, Programs, and Policies

□ Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)

□ Maintenance plans for street trees and other public trees

□ Natural areas management plans

□ Regional plans

□ Relevant previous or historic plans

□ Community tree programs

□ Private property tree programs

□ Educational materials, promotion and outreach

□ Municipal urban forestry policies

□ Municipal tree board/shade tree commission

□ Municipal urban forest budget

□ Municipal urban forest staff

□ Others Databases and Other Information

□ Comprehensive list of stakeholders

□ Funding sources

□ Maps

□ Citywide urban forest GIS

□ Others

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 23

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

However, there are a few essential ingredients without which you won’t be able to proceed very

far – specifically, one or more of the “Forest Resource Assessments,” discussed in detail below.

If you are lacking that information, you should take steps to fill that gap right from the start.

After describing those assessments, we’ll provide references to useful resources on all the other

ingredients.

Forest Resource Assessments

There are many reasons to assess the urban forest. Here are a few:

Facilitate planning, management, and advocacy.

Understand “tree benefits” and quantify ecosystem services (as discussed in Part II, Setting the Stage).

Measure and monitor the extent of tree canopy cover (as defined in Part III, Covering the Canopy).

Identify and prioritize tree planting locations in areas of greatest need and/or with greatest potential to maximize desired benefits.

Promote public outreach and education.

Essentially, any assessment of the urban forest involves examining its structure and composition.

There are two basic strategies:

“Bottom-up” approach – uses field data collected “on the ground” to measure the physical structure of the forest.

“Top-down” approach – uses aerial or satellite images to analyze tree canopy and other land cover.

The two approaches provide different types of information; ideally, your overall forest resource

assessment will include some of both. There are a variety of options within the two approaches,

each with its own advantages and disadvantages, as outlined below. The best approach or

combination for your situation will depend on what sort of information you’re hoping to gain,

and how you plan to use it.

Bottom-Up: Field-Based Assessments

Based on either a complete inventory or sample-based assessment, this approach provides the

detailed information needed to support strategic resource management, planning, and advocacy.

It does that by collecting forest structure attributes (such as tree species, numbers, sizes,

locations, and conditions), calculating their associated ecosystem services and values, and

connecting that data with management costs, risks, and needs. In addition to providing details on

the current situation, these tools can be used for monitoring changes in forest composition and

values.

Complete inventories involve collecting data on every tree in an assessment area. Because

this can be time and labor intensive, and possibly costly, such an undertaking is generally

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 24

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

reserved for circumstances that warrant that sort of investment – such as a complete

inventory of all street trees in a community or other individually managed public trees, or

where the defined assessment area is an arboretum, college campus, or other large property.

Sample-based assessments involve looking only at randomly selected portions of the tree

population in order to extrapolate findings to the overall area of interest. While they do not

assess every tree, they can actually collect more data than would be feasible with a complete

inventory. Moreover, a sample-based assessment may be all that’s needed to answer the

questions at hand, such as calculating the ecosystem services provided by the urban forest

citywide.

Two publicly available tools – i-Tree Eco and i-Tree Streets – were developed by the USDA

Forest Service and its partner organizations to aid in conducting complete inventories and

sample-based assessments of urban trees and forests, and for calculating their ecosystem services

and values. (Go to www.itreetools.org for more information on all i-Tree applications, which

range widely in the amount of training required, type of data provided, and features offered.)

i-Tree Eco can assess an entire urban forest using sample-based field assessments, or discrete

tree populations with complete inventory data. In either case, extensive technical data must

be collected on each tree. After incorporating meteorological inputs and other locally based

data, summary reports include detailed information on ecosystem services such as air

pollution removal, carbon storage capabilities, rainfall interception, impact on energy use in

adjacent buildings, overall structural value, and pest risk analysis. (www.itreetools.org/eco)

i-Tree Streets is designed for assessing the structure and benefits of street tree populations.

Because it requires less data on each tree, existing complete inventories or sample-based

assessments can often be successfully loaded into the program to analyze trees in a specific

area. In addition to providing basic management information, summary reports can be

generated that cover such ecosystem services as impacts on stormwater, property values, and

air quality. (www.itreetools.org/streets)

However, while the i-Tree tools are available for free, there are costs associated with collecting

the detailed data required. Volunteers, students, in-house crews, and hired consultants have all

been employed for collecting i-Tree data.

Tree Inventories and Routine Management Software

Tree inventories also support the day-to-day management of an urban forest, which is outside the scope of this guide. Along with asset-management software and other operations-based tools, complete inventories can be used to help track routine activities such as hazard inspection and tree maintenance. Various software programs are available for those purposes.

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 25

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

As an example, the typical citywide i-Tree Eco assessment requires 200 randomly generated one-

tenth acre plots to achieve desirable statistical accuracy. At a contracted rate of $200-300 per plot

for data collection, a consultant might charge a total of $40-60,000 for the project10

– or more, if

including interpretation, reporting, and management recommendations. Data-collection costs

could be half that much using student labor or even less with volunteers, though greater oversight

will be necessary. Under good conditions, a 200-plot sample typically yields a relative standard

error of less than 15 percent for the total tree population estimate.11

Sampling intensity (i.e., the

number of plots) can be adjusted to suit the accuracy desired and resources available. (In

addition, it’s worth noting that by demonstrating the financial value of the ecosystem services

provided by the urban forest, such an assessment can result in increased financial support for the

urban forest – which also helps justify the up-front investment.)

Top-Down: Tree Canopy Assessments

The top-down approach is used to determine the amount and distribution of tree canopy cover,

potential planting space, and other land cover types. As it is aerial-based, it does not obtain data

on individual trees, such as species, size, and condition. So the top-down approach is valuable

for broad-scale mapping, planning, prioritizing, and monitoring land cover – but generally not as

well-suited to assessing ecosystem services.

There are three common methods for assessing urban tree canopy cover. While all three will map

estimated tree canopy and other cover types in an area, they differ greatly in process, resolution,

costs, and accuracy. As a result, there are various advantages and disadvantages to each method,

as outlined below, in order of increasing cost and accuracy.

1) National Land Cover Database (NLCD) satellite imagery – Free maps and data for entire

contiguous 48 states showing estimated percentage of tree canopy and impervious land

cover. (Note: As of this writing, NLCD utilizes 2001 data, although updated maps are being

developed.)

Advantages: Can be loaded into i-Tree Vue program (www.itreetools.org/vue) to map tree

cover distribution along with overall estimates of some ecosystem services.

Disadvantages: Low resolution (30-meter pixels, or segments) cannot detect individual trees.

Accuracy: Typically underestimates tree cover by about 10 percent, on average. However,

user can improve accuracy by adjusting canopy cover percentage resolution using i-Tree Vue.

Cost: None, other than small amount (one day or less) of staff time, if experienced with GIS.

Recommendation: Better suited for broad-scale state or regional analyses, rather than city

scale or smaller.

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 26

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

2) Aerial photo interpretation – Randomly generated points on digital aerial images are

interpreted to determine cover type at each point center, resulting in estimates with a known

degree of statistical error. Accuracy can be easily increased by sampling more points (see

below).

Advantages: The i-Tree Canopy program (www.itreetools.org/canopy) can be used to photo-

interpret cover across the globe wherever high-quality images are available in Google

Maps. (This can also be done manually by GIS-experienced staff using other digital

images supplied by municipal or other regional sources.) ♦ Allows quick assessment of

land cover types (e.g., tree canopy, available planting space, impervious surfaces) and

can produce analyses and maps by defined zones (e.g., neighborhoods, census blocks). ♦

Changes in land cover over time can be assessed by matching paired images from

different dates.

Disadvantages: Cannot produce finely detailed maps of cover types, estimate full range of

ecosystem services, or summarize data at multiple, finely defined scales. ♦ Available

image quality may be poor in some locations.

Accuracy: A sample of 100 points (which can be interpreted in about 1 hour) will yield an

estimate with a standard error of about 4.6 percent in an area with 30 percent canopy

cover; increasing the sample to 1,000 points would reduce the error to 1.4 percent. ♦ To

minimize errors introduced by misclassifying cover types, photo-interpreters must be

trained and checked. Leaf-off imagery in particular can be difficult to interpret. ♦ Can

also be useful for checking accuracy of other top-down methods.

Cost: Images are generally available for free or at low cost. ♦ Staff time depends on sample

size, as noted above.

Recommendation: A good low-cost option for getting an initial top-down perspective on a

city’s urban forest and tracking change over time. Can be highly accurate, though not

very detailed or flexible. Best method to estimate tree cover if you do not need to map it.

Neighborhood tree cover in Toronto, determined through photo interpretation

Photo interpretation involves classifying random points within preselected cover classes (e.g., tree, impervious, water)

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 27

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

3) High-resolution aerial or satellite imagery – Automated techniques extract land cover

features from high-resolution imagery (typically less than 1-meter pixels), yielding detailed

maps of tree canopy and other cover types in a given area. (Source imagery for the entire

United States is available from USDA.)

High-resolution vs. 30-m NLCD imagery High-resolution land cover map

Advantages: Data can be summarized at a broad range of scales (e.g., parcel to watershed),

enabling user to relate tree canopy cover to a host of demographic, planning, and

biophysical data. ♦ Among other purposes, can be used to locate and prioritize potentially

available spaces to plant trees, and to monitor locations where cover is changing. ♦

Integrates well with GIS.

Disadvantages: Analysis and reporting requires highly trained personnel, specialized image

analysis software, and significant time and effort. ♦ Does not include ecosystem services

estimates.

Accuracy: Accuracy varies but is typically 90 percent accurate for tree cover. ♦ Utilizing

advanced remote-sensing technology, such as LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging, or

laser radar), and/or making manual corrections can increase the accuracy to over 95

percent. ♦ Unless corrected, map inaccuracies can show false changes in tree cover over

time.

Cost: Though basic source imagery is free, overall costs vary widely, depending on the size

of the study area and the availability and quality of source data. ♦ Citywide assessments

by professional consultants can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $60,000 or more.

Recommendation: Best method to map urban tree cover; used for various Urban Tree

Canopy (UTC) studies. For more information: www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/utc/.

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 28

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Other Key Ingredients

To assemble the many other elements you’ll want to consider for your compilation, review the

descriptions below and explore the references listed for each item, which you will find in

Appendix A, Resources.

Plans, Practices, Programs, and Policies:

Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) – A comprehensive plan should address goals

and actions for the entire urban forest within the defined boundaries, on both public and

private property. Topics covered may include maintenance standards, tree inventories and

assessments, planting plans, tree selection standards, personnel training and development,

community engagement, and many other items.

Maintenance plans for street trees and other public trees – These plans address

operational processes involving individually managed trees on public property such as

streets, recreation centers, and other public places.

Natural areas management plans – Surveys and stewardship plans for publicly owned

natural areas include both broad and specific management goals for trees that are

managed as a group or population, as opposed to individually like street trees.

Regional plans – These could include existing plans or planning processes directly or

indirectly related to aspects of the broader urban forest, such as open space, recreation

trails, economic development, etc.

Relevant previous or historic plans – For purposes of comparison as well as to preserve

“institutional memory” and avoid reinventing the wheel, it can be important to collect all

previous planning efforts related to the urban forest.

Community tree programs – These can include planting, stewardship, and training

programs often managed by independent nonprofit organizations.

Private property tree programs – Including tree giveaways and other municipally or

independently managed incentive programs to promote tree planting and stewardship on

private property.

Educational materials, promotion and outreach – In addition to the general public, key

targets include large landholders, such as hospitals, schools, and other institutions or

individuals.

Municipal urban forestry policies – These can include a wide range of tools – guidelines,

ordinances, laws, regulations – concerning such things as public agency cooperation,

green industry collaboration, cooperative arrangements with utilities, protection and

preservation of large and/or private trees, use of native species, etc.

PART IV – GATHERING THE INFORMATION Page 29

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Municipal tree board/shade tree commission – Depending on their structure, these

volunteer-based bodies may have advisory or even regulatory functions.

Municipal urban forest budget – Without line items in the city budget, urban forestry

activities are apt to be haphazard at best.

Municipal urban forest staff – With a budget in place and protected, adequate staffing is

essential for making progress toward a sustainable urban forest. Of course, municipal

capacity can get a tremendous boost from independent nonprofits, community groups,

and individual volunteers.

Others – Additional items to consider compiling include sources on green jobs training

programs, agroforestry (fruit and nuts), state urban and community forestry contacts and

resources, local nursery sources, contractors and arborist, etc.

Databases and Other Information:

Comprehensive list of stakeholders – To support your efforts, assemble a contact list of

all key players, partners, and stakeholders (e.g., government representatives and agencies,

nonprofit organizations, community groups, large or institutional landholders, utilities,

etc.) – as well as what they each bring to the table (e.g., resources, issues, regulations,

programs, etc.).

Funding sources – Even with a standing budget line, you’ll surely need supplemental

funding wherever you can find it.

Maps – Print and electronic maps at all scales – neighborhood, municipal, regional – are

essential tools for planning and management purposes.

Citywide urban forest GIS – To the fullest extent possible, seek to integrate urban

forestry information within the structure of overall municipal GIS (Geographic

Information System).

Note: An extensive array of sample materials for all of the above items can be found in Appendix A, along with hot links to the online resources.

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 30

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK There is more to the urban forest than an assemblage of trees and other natural features. Focusing

exclusively on the management of those resources neglects the community setting, which is what

makes the forest “urban” – and what makes sustainability possible.

Why Collaborate?

One obvious reason to foster cross-sector collaboration is that the trees that are within a

municipality’s control typically represent only a portion of the overall urban forest. So if you’re

working toward a sustainable urban forest and not just managing trees you own or manage, it’s

essential to enlist others in the effort on their own turf.

For that matter, even just managing those portions of the urban forest that do fall under your

direct control – in the case of a municipality, street or park trees, for example – requires

widespread popular support and buy-in from decision makers. There are also compelling

arguments of resource equity, environmental justice, and basic democracy that demand broad

inclusion of community stakeholders as you shape your tree agenda.

Moreover, municipal capacity is limited and changes with the economy, the administration, and

other unpredictable factors – including the weather. Bridging the lean times and handling the

most demanding periods requires more than most municipality’s can provide without tapping

into external resources. That can include human resources in the form of volunteer labor as well

as outside financial support. In fact, volunteer labor itself should be considered an important

form of outside financial support, in the form of human resources.

Urban forestry stakeholders can be tapped in all sectors – public agencies and officials, private

citizens, nonprofits, commercial firms, academic institutions, and so on – with varied interests

spanning the full spectrum of social, economic, and environmental issues. Even just within the

“We cannot separate sustainable urban forests from the people who live in and around them. … [S]ustainable urban forests are not born, they are made. They do not arise at random, but result from a community-wide commitment to their creation and management. Obtaining the commitment of a broad community, of numerous constituencies, cannot be dictated or legislated. It must arise out of compromise and respect.”

– Clark et al, A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability, Journal of Arboriculture, 1997

“Independent action is inadequate: no agency, organization, single landowner, or business has sufficient funds or land to achieve a city’s [urban tree canopy] goal. Coordination and collaboration are needed and depend upon identifying common or complementary interests, categories of programs, or areas for action.”

– Locke et al, Cities and the Environment, 2013

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 31

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

municipal realm, there is a broad range of agencies with vested interests in trees – whether by

means of regulations, programs, land holdings, or other areas of intersection. So don’t limit your

thinking exclusively to the urban forestry field.

The box [BELOW] lists numerous possible stakeholders to consider consulting or recruiting from

your community. Some are important by virtue of their direct control over properties which

enables them to manage trees and urban forest land; others exert their influence by influencing

others; some function in both roles.

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 32

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Possible Stakeholders – and Collaborators – to Consider

Whether you are simply reaching out for input from various parties or seeking to recruit a standing advisory or working group, you’ll have plenty of places to look. The list below is neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive; the terminology may not match your locale, and you may think of many other possibilities. Any or all of these stakeholders may have an interest in urban forestry concerns; many will play an essential role. When striving for a sustainable urban forest, it’s better to err on the side of inclusivity. City Departments & Agencies

Forestry

Parks & Recreation

Natural Resources

Environment

Shade Tree Commission

Sustainability

Planning

Community Development

Economic Development

Housing

Transportation

Public Works

Public Utilities

Water

Energy

General Services

Police

Fire

Health

Education

Stakeholders in Other Sectors

Regional agencies

Regional planners

Park districts, forest preserves

Conservation districts

Transportation agencies

Landholders

Residential homeowners

Homeowner Associations

Institutional, commercial, and industrial

Public

General public

Community groups

Faith groups

Tree-planting volunteers

Elected officials

Private

Developers

Utility service companies

Arborists and tree care companies

Landscape architects

Design engineers

Contractors

Ecological restoration practitioners

Green industry employers

Small business associations

Corporate sponsors

NGOs

Tree advocacy groups

Bike trail coalitions

“Friends of” park groups

Watershed partnerships

Community development organizations

Other related nonprofits

Academia

Public and private schools

Universities and academic institutions

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 33

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

That multiplicity of stakeholders is both an asset and a liability. On the one hand, it requires

extra effort; on the other, it builds added capacity. Good communication and coordination are the

keys to maximizing the opportunity. While you can never have too many enthusiastic “tree

champions,” all engaged in advancing the common cause in their individual and overlapping

spheres of influence, it’s important to form and empower a core group that can kickstart a

fledgling urban forestry initiative and help maintain the momentum of a program once it’s up

and running.12

Broad, cross-sector involvement allows input on diverse needs, opportunities, perspectives, and

preferences related to the urban forest. With that sort of engaged representation, you can identify

individual and common goals – economic, social, and environmental – and then undertake the

hard work of navigating sometimes competing interests and setting priorities. In fact, as noted in

the previous section, any successful attempt to set priorities must necessarily involve extensive

input from diverse stakeholders.

In its Guide to Community and Urban Forestry Programming, the Evergreen Communities

Partnership in Washington State observes that “a community – residents and businesses alike –

that is provided a clear picture of the priorities, scope, timing, and resources for achieving a

thriving urban forest is more likely to invest their energy and resources to help achieve that

vision.” That holds true for stakeholders in other sectors as well – and all the more so where all

stakeholders have had a hand in painting that picture.

Prioritizing action on tree planting and care involves many different though interrelated

parameters, which generally fall into two broad categories:

land use / land cover / locations / sites

tree benefits / ecosystem services In communities that have a comprehensive sustainability plan in place, some goals and priorities

related to the urban forest may already have been established with considerable stakeholder

input. That can provide a good foundation, but it does not eliminate the need for establishing

connections and maintaining ongoing relationships with key stakeholders – not just to garner

advance input, but to secure involvement and support over time.

There are a number of ways to get that initial input from diverse stakeholders and build upon the

foundation for future collaboration. Broad-based and targeted questionnaires and surveys (print

or online) can be an important step in the process – for example, providing information about the

commonalities and differences across the multiplicity of stakeholders, identifying opportunities

for communication and coordination, and spotting potential gaps in capacity as well as capacity

to spare – and to share. Still, there’s no substitute for actual in-person outreach in a variety of

settings, ranging from one-on-one professional interviews to large-scale public meetings.

Whatever the method, it’s important to strive for what the American Planning Association

describes in its report, Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community

Development, as “a planned and programmatic approach to the development and maintenance of

the urban forest, including all elements of green infrastructure within the community, in an effort

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 34

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

to optimize the resulting benefits in social, environmental, public health, economic, and aesthetic

terms, especially when resulting from a community visioning and goal-setting process [emphasis

added].”

Internal City Stakeholders and Relationships As Washington’s Evergreen Communities Partnership points out, “Vital, livable communities

have a number of responsibilities and requirements to fulfill toward their citizens, both

residential and commercial. Community and urban forestry principles and practices should be

integrated into the land use, transportation, parks and open spaces, and capital facilities plans and

programs to maximize … ecosystem benefits ….”

Within the municipal sector itself, the ideal situation would be one where all city departments

cooperate and share common goals and objectives related to the urban forest. That may sound

unlikely, but on closer examination, unexpected commonalities may be revealed. In one

prioritization exercise conducted in Baltimore, U.S. Forest Service researchers noted that “the

interests among public agencies were varied.”

For instance, the Departments of Transportation and Public Works sought to

reduce the amount of impervious surfaces in the City. Housing and Community Development considered greening to be a strategy for community stabilization

and re-development. Public Health understood trees to be important for reducing

cases of heat-related stress and asthma. Education sought to create greener and

more attractive school campuses, while Planning considered trees to be important

to a variety of sustainability goals from reducing energy consumption to

improving water quality and reducing the severity of flood events.

One natural area of mutual interest across municipal departments in Baltimore that the

researchers identified involved finding common ground – literally:

Some agencies were “landowners,” such as Recreation and Parks, and

Transportation. These lands were often physically adjoining, which represents

opportunities for coordination and collaboration. In other cases, agencies were

“landless” such as Planning, Public Works, and Health. This fact represents an

opportunity for collaboration among “landless” agencies, [who need] technical

assistance and resources to meet their programmatic requirements, and landowner

agencies who are in deep need for resources and additional expertise to better

meet the City’s diverse sustainability goals.

– Locke et al, Cities and the Environment, 2013

There are often special collaborative opportunities just within the Planning Department in

particular. For example, in preparing an Urban Forest Management Plan for the City of Clovis,

California, the consultants found that while the Public Utilities Department has primary

responsibility for managing and caring for public trees, other City agencies play critical roles in

planning, preservation, and enhancement of the community’s urban forest – chief among them,

the Planning and Development Services Department, which is responsible for the planning,

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 35

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

review, and acceptance of new development and redevelopment within the city.13

Here’s how

that department breaks down in Clovis:

The Review Unit reviews and influences plans for new development projects, including

the width of landscape strips and parkways, species selection, and number of trees per

dwelling unit.

The Planning Division directs the development of design code, specifications, and

guidelines for new development – which may include elements of tree preservation and a

parking lot shade ordinance as part of a Climate Action Plan.

The Capital Improvement Program is responsible for public projects, including facilities,

parks, and streetscapes that enhance the entire community and contribute to the quality of

life for all residents.

Different municipalities handle those responsibilities differently, but the upshot remains the

same: Integrating urban forestry concerns into community planning activities at all levels is an

opportunity not to be missed. (See box [BELOW] for more specifics on planning possibilities.)

All manner of municipal ordinances, by-laws, and other community regulations – ranging from

the establishment of a tree commission to the protection of a specific historic tree – can be useful

implements in the urban forestry toolkit. No single “model ordinance” or regulation can serve the

goals or other particulars of all communities. (Some general guidance and samples can be found

in the resources listed at the end of Part IV, Gathering the Information.) Most important to keep

in mind: Even the best ordinance, by-law, or regulation is worthless without enforcement muscle

to back it up.

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 36

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Of course, one powerful motivating force behind municipal action is the weight of regulatory

requirements. In particular, two sets of federal regulations – encompassed by the Clean Water

Act and the Clean Air Act – present opportunities for making urban forestry part of mandatory

compliance. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is now giving credits for

transpiration from trees.14

As discussed in Part II, Setting the Stage, green infrastructure

initiatives, including trees, can be incorporated into specific “best management practices”

designed to reduce nonpoint-source pollutants carried by stormwater runoff in order to secure

municipal stormwater permits. Enhancing the urban forest may also help attain air quality

standards as well as mitigate climate change. Especially in coastal areas, various habitat

protection regulations can support urban forestry initiatives.

Cross-Sector Stakeholders There are a number of creative ways to motivate stakeholders in the private sector to take up the

urban forestry cause – in addition to appealing to an altruistic sense of community involvement,

which is not to be minimized. Possible incentives include such things as stormwater utility

credits, certified wildlife habitat designation, building density or height bonuses, streamlined

permit review, adjusted setback or parking requirements, and property or impact fee reductions.

Planning for Trees

Below the macro policy level, planners have numerous opportunities to work with their urban forestry staff to implement [tree program] goals. … The success of tree programs tends to lie in the details, which can include collaboration between both groups on all of the following:

Requirements for detailing tree-planting plans in site plan submissions. Regulations regarding tree preservation procedures in the development process. Management of tree issues arising in the public hearing process on proposed

developments. Review of site plans, which can include having an arborist check the plans for

compliance on tree-related issues. Establishment of tree-planting and tree-preservation requirements in subdivision

regulations. Development and enforcement of standards for tree planting and maintenance

in parking lots. Monitoring of tree protection and proper planting during site development. Acquisition of open space or easements to preserve existing forest in urban

areas. Metrics to calculate the amount of pollution removed by urban trees and the

associated improvement in air quality.

– “Planning the Urban Forest,” American Planning Association (2009)

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 37

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Utility companies – including energy providers, but also telephone, cable television, internet,

and other service suppliers – present special challenges and opportunities for growing and

protecting the urban forest, whether working above or below ground. Proper siting and design of

that infrastructure – along with proper selection and maintenance of the trees beneath overhead

lines and above waterlines and other underground utilities – can minimize service interruptions,

reduce conflicts when repairs or replacements are needed, and avoid barren or unsightly

streetscapes.

For example, in the Village of Homer Glen just outside Chicago, long-deferred maintenance of

an underground petroleum pipeline resulted in the removal of hundreds of trees from residential

neighborhoods in 2007.15

On the other hand, utility corridors outside of residential areas, whether

conveying underground pipes or overhead wires, can afford utility companies opportunities for

urban forest stewardship in large and contiguous rights-of-way, which can sometimes double as

extensive recreation trails. Transportation corridors can present similar opportunities.

Another important way to enhance the urban environment while also greatly benefitting the

economic and social aspects of the “triple bottom line” is to develop a strong green jobs workforce. According to the Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests report:

Providing quality training, employment opportunities, and career pathways in areas

related to urban forestry and green infrastructure creates a mutually beneficial

situation that can bolster local and regional economies, improve individual and

public health and welfare, and promote lasting stewardship practices, even as new

public funding may be constrained due to economic and political forces.

There are many ways to generate additional job training, open doors and increase

employment opportunities in this sector. Reassessing and repurposing existing

programs and resources to expand their mandates to encompass efforts in urban

forestry and natural resources management have been proven successful. The

private sector can also be further encouraged to incorporate the multiple benefits

of trees and sustainability elements into development and redevelopment efforts –

necessitating a specialized workforce to create and maintain resulting assets. And,

any number of existing jobs can be redefined to emphasize or include better

stewardship practices for urban forests and green infrastructure.

Yet another motivational strategy involving multiple cross-sector players is to establish energy

efficiency programs that emphasize the use of trees as a best management practice for energy

conservation. As noted in the Vibrant Cities report, “a number of programs – including new

initiatives advocated and supported by municipalities and utilities in collaboration with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as state

regulatory agencies – are ongoing or anticipated in cities across the country.” The City of San

Antonio, Texas, for example, offers the Green Shade Tree Rebate Program – a public-private,

interagency partnership that rewards homeowners who plant qualified trees in strategic locations

with a reimbursement of $50 per tree, for up to three trees.16

Needless to say, elected officials can have a strong impact on any city program, and urban

forestry is no exception. Their influence may be most direct in terms of financial support, which

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 38

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

can make or break any municipal initiative. So it’s important to build personal political

relationships where possible. And even more so, it’s essential to galvanize the popular support of

the general citizenry, which has obvious influence over its elected officials and to some degree

its appointed city officials as well, helping to shape public policy and strengthen political

backbone where needed.

As noted in the APA’s Planning the Urban Forest, “Effective urban forestry depends ultimately

on the public policy supporting it—financially, administratively, and legally. Mayors and council

members shape the programs and lines of authority within departments under which urban

forestry programs must operate.” By coming at the political realm from all sides, you’re more

likely to secure the kind of support that transcends a change in administrations, which can pull

the rug out from under many initiatives that are identified too closely with a predecessor.

Close connections and working relationships with nonprofit organizations and community or neighborhood groups may be the biggest boon of all, by way of boosting capacity and

maintaining the momentum of a popular urban forestry program. Not only can that supply a

cadre of energized volunteers and environmental stewards, but it can also provide access to and

influence over areas that are outside the direct control of municipal workers – especially in the

realm of private property, which typically encompasses most of the urban forest.

General Principle 3: Seek out Private and Civic Partners

“Ultimately, true success in maintaining the urban forest depends on the continuing support of homeowners, businesses, and leagues of dedicated volunteers in organizations such as local tree trusts. The most effective way to maximize the effectiveness of all private partners in combination is to develop and evolve a comprehensive strategy for programmatic relationships with them, knowing what strengths and capabilities each brings to the overall effort as well as their differences.”

Volunteers and property owners – “[At the] neighborhood level, such programs can enlist the active support of block clubs and community organizations interested in improving the livability of their city.”

Business partners – “One part of the business community that cannot be ignored is the media—in all forms. Print, broadcast, and electronic media all can play a part in disseminating information and cultivating public support.”

– “Planning the Urban Forest,” American Planning Association (2009)

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 39

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Large private landholders deserve special mention, as individuals can have a disproportionate

impact on the urban forest by virtue of their property ownership. Neglected, this sector can be a

huge deficit; but properly nurtured, it can become a significant asset. With adequate personal

attention, key individuals – people or entities – can be motivated to make decisions and take

actions that boost the urban forest in their domain. So it’s important to develop outreach that

encourages those landholders to embrace citywide goals and objectives through comprehensive

tree management plans on their properties. This outreach can involve technical advice,

educational materials, and financial incentives.

Citizen Foresters in Clovis “The Citizen Forester Program, which began in 2011, is intended to educate and promote involvement in urban forestry issues. The program is a collaboration between the City of Clovis, Tree Fresno, the San Joaquin Valley Urban Forests Council, CalFire, PG&E, and the Fresno County Master Gardeners. Participants in the program are educated in tree biology, tree and site selection, tree identification, proper planting and pruning techniques, and basic tree care. Once trained, Citizen Foresters are expected to provide leadership and assistance with tree planting projects and other community urban forest activities.”

– Source: City of Clovis (CA) Urban Forest Management Plan 2012

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 40

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

STEW-MAP: Visualizing – and Engaging – Stewardship across the Urban Landscape

The Stewardship Mapping and Assessment Project (STEW-MAP) seeks to answer a big

question: In taking care of the urban environment, who is doing what, and where? More

specifically, what are the social and spatial interactions among civic groups who conserve,

manage, monitor, advocate for, and educate the public about their local surroundings?

Based on a protocol developed by U.S. Forest Service researchers, STEW-MAP yields

information-rich maps that display the presence, capacity, geographic turf, and social networks

of environmental stewardship groups in a given city. In this way, these social infrastructure data

are treated as part of a municipality’s green infrastructure asset mapping. The project highlights

existing stewardship gaps and overlaps in order to strengthen organizational capacities, enhance

Environmental Justice – Ensuring Equitable Distribution of Resources

As defined by the EPA,

“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,

regulations, and policies.

“It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making

process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.” An array of helpful resources on the subject can be found at http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/. Urban forestry programs in particular necessarily impact highly diverse population groups across a city. To encompass that diversity requires a broader perspective and more deliberate outreach than might otherwise occur. The benefit to a successful and sustainable program, however, far exceeds the extra effort and results in a far more equitable distribution of natural resources and their ecosystem services. “Outreach Services: Strategies for All Communities,” a guidebook from the Alliance for Community Trees, is designed to help you work with diverse population groups in your community: http://actrees.org/resources/tools-for-nonprofits/community-outreach/. As stated on the ACTrees website, “Outreach is critical to sustain and expand programs and activities that engage all community members. New voices, new perspectives, and new populations of community residents bring life to any initiative. Take the opportunity to iden-tify, understand, and involve varied populations when planning and executing any community activity or service.”

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 41

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

citizen monitoring, promote broader public engagement with on-the-ground environmental work,

and build effective partnerships between stakeholders involved in urban sustainability.

STEW-MAP is a tool for natural resource managers, funders, policymakers, stewardship groups,

and the public. For example, managers in New York City have queried STEW-MAP to find

stewards who are located near specific forest restoration projects run by MillionTreesNYC.17

Funders or community organizers can identify areas having the greatest or least presence of

stewardship groups, taking into account organization size and focus area. Those seeking to

disseminate policy information can target the most connected groups to quickly and effectively

reach an entire network or a subset. Members of the public who want to know who is working in

a particular neighborhood or who can provide technical resources for a project can search the

database, which displays results as a list or on a map.

There are four features that make STEW-MAP a unique tool for stewardship management;

1. Uses a broad definition of stewardship – conserving, managing, caring for, monitoring, advocating for, and educating the public about local environments – and invites participation from all types of environmental stewards, not just those who are formally trained, work with nonprofit groups, or focus on a specific type of stewardship activity.

2. Invites stewardship groups to map exactly where they work – whether in a community garden, on a municipal lot, in part of a public park, or in a larger “territory” like a neighborhood, city, county, or state.

3. Collects social network data about how stewardship groups are connected with other groups to collaborate on projects or receive funding or information.

4. The survey and related data analysis are scientifically rigorous and are guided and informed by an extensive literature review on urban environmental stewardship.

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 42

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

How to STEW-MAP

There are two stages to implementing STEW-MAP. The first involves extensive data collection, in which the organizational population is inventoried, surveyed, and analyzed. This effort yields a database of stewardship organizations in the municipality, maps of where the organizations conduct stewardship activities, and social network analyses of the numbers and types of ties among groups. The second stage involves developing resources and tools to make that data easier to access and use. Collectively, this work is typically accomplished by collaboration among local partners from the study area, university partners, and Forest Service scientists.

To date, the model has been used by several cities to collect information from thousands of local stewardship groups – ranging from neighborhood block associations and kayak clubs, to tree planting groups and regional environmental coalitions, to nonprofit educational institutions and museums. To learn more about STEW-MAP, visit www.stewmap.net and browse these city sites – in particular, New York and Chicago, which are farthest along in the process so far:

Baltimore | Chicago Region | Los Angeles | New York City | Philadelphia | Seattle

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 43

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Regional Collaboration: Developing a Strategy across Borders

Urban forest initiatives developed within municipal boundaries can be greatly enhanced by

recognizing the interconnection of ecological systems at the regional scale. After all, air, water,

and other environmental features do not observe political boundaries, so what happens on one

side of the border is bound to impact the other. While that may seem obvious, the significance of

that interdependence is often overlooked. As pointed out in Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology,

Communicating Your Message: “Trees Are the Key” Online Toolkit To help promote the importance of the urban forest and persuade stakeholders to support and join the cross-sector collaboration, a communications toolkit has been developed by the Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition (SUFC). These free-access tools represent the culmination of a process that began with the release of Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests: A National Call to Action. (To read more about the strategic framework these materials are based on, now known as “Vibrant Communities,” click here.) In brief, the goals of creating this toolkit are to:

Provide common language for discussing urban forestry issues. Trees and urban forests are highly localized issues, and no “single message” will resonate across the board. These communications tools revolve around a “platform” of the 12 Vibrant Cities & Urban Forests recommendations – which encompass the work you’re already doing – and strategies for using those recommendations to build on that work.

Share communications products that can add value to any size organization. Both “branded” and “unbranded” copies of most of these materials are posted online. The goal is to enable smaller organizations with limited resources to use the materials “off the shelf,” with little or no editing. Larger organizations can customize the materials in any way they choose.

Develop tools that can be used to broaden the circle of stakeholders advocating on behalf of urban forests. These materials are intended to deliver clear and compelling messages to individuals and organizations working on complementary issues. Such areas include public health, economic development, environmental justice, and others. In the toolkit, you will find talking points, slides, and other materials that make the explicit connection between these issues and urban forest advocacy.

NOTE: All content in this toolkit is copyright- and royalty-free. You may use or modify the material in any way that suits your purposes. Source: http://treesarethekey.org/trees-are-the-key-online-toolkit/

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 44

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Economy, and Community Development, this deficit “places added emphasis on the importance

of multijurisdictional, regional planning and cooperation for effective resource conservation.”18

Such a region-focused approach can have significant impact and potentially strengthen many

local acupunctural efforts that are compatible with regional goals. For example, where improving

water quality is a high priority, utilizing a watershed-wide systems approach can mean that

regional governmental networks (e.g., a Council of Governments or COG) plan collaboratively

to establish an overall tree canopy goal for the region – and to use that regional goal as a

framework to set local municipal goals.

In short, a comprehensive framework should reach across municipal, county, and even state

political jurisdictions to be most strategic, successful, and sustainable. The following are three

examples of regional initiatives that have defied political boundaries with goal-focused

prioritization.

Chicago Region Trees Initiative for the Seven-County Metropolitan Area

The Chicago Region Trees Initiative (CRTI) was formed to develop and implement a strategy for

a healthier urban forest by 2040 and was born out of the leading collaborative efforts of the

Morton Arboretum and Openlands, one of the nation’s oldest metropolitan conservation

organizations. In addition to those two organizations, the Executive Advisory Council of CRTI

includes the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, Forest Preserve of Cook County, Illinois

Landscape Contractors Association, The Nature Conservancy, and Chicago Wilderness (a

regional alliance which itself comprises more than 300 organizations). Many other partners –

including public and private landowners and managers as well as interested organizations and

individuals – are collaborating on the development and implementation of the CRTI strategy and

goals.

In 2004, Chicago Wilderness developed a Green Infrastructure Vision with the goal of “having

green infrastructure considered on equal footing with traditional infrastructure and capital

improvements.” The alliance worked closely with CMAP to integrate that goal into the

development of the comprehensive regional plan known as GOTO2040, which was intended “to

help the seven counties and 284 communities plan together for sustainable prosperity.”19

Ultimately, that collaborative effort led to the inclusion of a proposed green infrastructure

network “that follows waterway corridors, expands existing preserves, and creates new preserves

in the region.”20

Another component of the GOTO2040 plan staged the framework for the Chicago Region Trees

Initiative.

“The urban forest of trees that grow in our cities and suburbs needs protection and

nurturing so we can harness its many benefits. But first, we need to understand it.

To that end, The Morton Arboretum, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service,

has conducted a tree census, or urban forestry assessment, in the seven-county

Chicago region.”21

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 45

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

The results of the assessment, published in Urban Trees and Forests of the Chicago Region,

informed the development of an overall strategy and the management programs needed “to

integrate forests into plans to improve environmental quality in the Chicago region.”22

The emphasis on regional strategic visions to support and impact local effort is succinctly

captured in The Role of Our Urban Forest in the Chicago Metropolitan Region’s Future, which

points out that the shift to “a new, collaborative regional approach to urban and community

forestry is essential for preparing for 2.8 million new residents by 2040.”23

Here’s how the Morton Arboretum described the Chicago Region Trees Initiative, “a strategy to

improve the vitality and sustainability of the region’s trees,” at its summer 2014 launch:

“… the Arboretum has established a coalition of agency, industry, and community

representatives to expand the understanding of the value of the region's trees and to make

meaningful tree and forest improvements in the region. …

“The 5-year vision of the Regional Trees Initiative is to ensure that the region's tree

population is broadly understood, its collaborative management opportunities are

identified and enacted, and a 2040 goal for the population is clearly underway, with

interim actions understood and subscribed to by all partners.

“The desired outcome after five years is measurable improvements in the health and

vigor of the region's trees. Specific measures and targets will be developed for one- and

five-year goals.

“The myriad issues require considerable gathering, analysis and discussion in order to

develop a strategy that is pragmatic, actionable, and measurable. Stakeholders across the

region, both in the public and private sectors, including public and private landowners,

must engage and take ownership in the steps necessary to ensure a healthy forest for the

region.”24

In 2014, Chicago Wilderness and the Morton Arboretum developed the Oak Recovery Plan, an

18-county effort to map remaining oak stands, one acre or larger, and compare these stands to

pre-settlement oak populations in order to facilitate development of a strategy to improve the

health and vitality of oak ecosystems across this area.

The CRTI Forest Composition Work Group is now gathering public and private tree inventories

and Urban Tree Canopy data, and combining this information at the community scale with other

mapping and planning efforts, including those described above, to create a meaningful snapshot

of the forest composition of the seven-county Chicago region that will enable land managers and

owners to make effective decisions. Several other CRTI Work Groups – Tree Stewardship and

Planting; Industry and Associations; Trees and Green Infrastructure; Tree Risk Assessment and

Management; Education; Communication; Resources – are compiling and creating materials and

training programs to facilitate improved management and care for the regional forest.

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 46

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Sacramento Greenprint

An effective regional initiative requires not only developing a strategy that crosses jurisdictional

boundaries, but also fostering collaborative and complementary efforts by multiple fields of

expertise focused on achieving a mutually desirable outcome. In the instance of Sacramento,

California, improving the air – both air quality and temperature – was the key driver that

ultimately led to an exemplary urban forestry framework model. As reported by the Alliance for

Community Trees (ACTrees):

“Sacramento has consistently ranked poorly in air quality. Because of this and

many other benefits of a healthy urban forest, in 2005, Sacramento region elected

officials signed on to support the Sacramento Tree Foundation’s ‘Greenprint.’

This regional urban forest initiative seeks to galvanize the Sacramento region

around a goal of planting an additional five million trees for substantial

improvements in summer peak temperatures and air quality.”25

Subsequently funded by a $725,000 Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

Improvement (CMAQ) grant, the Sacramento Tree Foundation teamed up with the U.S. Forest

Service, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer

and Feather River Air Districts to study the effect of trees on air pollution.26

The goal of

improving air quality has fostered collaboration across jurisdictions and agencies, where the

results of the scientific study grounded and emphasized the regional urban forestry approach,

Greenprint, for the Sacramento area.

Ultimately, the Greenprint was adopted by the 22 cities and six counties in the Greater

Sacramento Area, with the clear and ambitious vision of serving as “a regional framework

designed to build an optimal urban forest in every neighborhood, business district, park, school,

and street.”27

A few of the elements guiding implementation are:

“Our bold vision to enhance the quality of life in our region by expanding the urban

forest and maximizing the benefits of trees.

“Our roadmap for mobilizing and empowering community partners and volunteers to

plant 5 million trees in the Sacramento region.

“Our proud partnerships with elected officials, service and faith groups, businesses,

youth, and everyone who will help us reach our goal.”

Fundamental to the Sacramento Greenprint, and likely any regional strategic initiative, is the

recognition of specific challenges that each jurisdiction may encounter. For that reason, the

Sacramento model introduced the creative guiding concept known as Growth Rings, which

“represent increasing levels of commitment and benchmarks for progress. There is built-in

flexibility for each city and county to determine their particular pathway for achieving progress

in each of the growth rings.”28

The provision of incremental stages along the path for each locale

allows for emphasis to be placed locally within the context of the regional goal.

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 47

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

29

Wisconsin Statewide Urban Forest Strategy

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is an example of a state agency that

has developed multi-faceted initiatives that weave local and regional strategies together for a

cohesive approach to urban forestry.

“The WDNR provides urban forestry technical, financial, and promotional

assistance to local and tribal governments along with nonprofit organizations

through its Urban Forestry Working Group. Led by a State coordinator, a grant

manager, six regional coordinators, and six half-time specialists, statewide policy

Greenprint Goals for Growth

Sacramento’s Greenprint established growth goals for three key areas, along with steps to align local efforts. Here are a few key actions within each area:

1. Management of Public Trees

Conduct an urban forest value assessment.

Convene interdepartmental urban forest stakeholder working group.

Adopt an urban forest master plan.

Form an urban forest department/hire an urban forest coordinator.

Conduct biannual urban forest department evaluations.

2. Policies and Ordinances “The Greenprint Clearinghouse will provide information, guidance, and workshops to develop model policies and ordinances that can be adopted throughout the region. This approach offers consistency throughout the region, creating a regional approach to the protection, replacement, and mitigation of trees.”

Adopt street and park tree protection ordinance/policy.

Adopt street, median, and parking lot design guidelines.

Implement sustainable funding for urban forest activities.

Develop comprehensive urban forest ordinance components.

Adopt urban forest goals in the general plan and community plans.

3. Community Partnerships “The most significant element to creating a healthy urban forest is the role played by private property owners and volunteers, because 80 percent of the urban forest is located on private land. Cities and counties that create partnerships with their community members and businesses are more likely to succeed in their urban forest plans and programs.”

Sponsor community and neighborhood tree plantings.

Conduct media events for tree projects and Greenprint milestones.

Develop and implement private partnership tree planting and grant programs.

Create partnerships with school districts for tree plantings.

Support NeighborWoods groups to develop neighborhood-level urban forest plans.

PART V – CONSTRUCTING THE COMMUNITY FRAMEWORK Page 48

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

development and implementation are managed with a team approach in

partnership with the Wisconsin Urban Forestry Council.”30

The collective expertise found on the Wisconsin Urban Forestry Council strengthens the voice

for urban forestry advocacy, and serves as “an advisory committee to the WDNR consisting of

24 representatives from the green industry, government agencies, municipalities, and nonprofit

and trade organizations.”31

(Information on the Urban Forestry Council for each state can be

found at http://actrees.org/uncategorized/urban-forest-council-profiles/.)

32 The framework of WDNR also engages the regional and local communities’ efforts through its

Urban Forestry Working Group. This approach of funneling strategies from state, to regional, to

local requires “networking efforts [that] continue to strengthen due to the numerous municipal

networking group meetings and conversations … with a total of over 200 members, which

include municipal tree managers and representatives from utility companies, universities, private

consulting firms, and nonprofit organizations.”33

Many local jurisdictions across the country are challenged with allocating financial resources to

additional infrastructural projects, and thus being able to reach across the boundary to a state

agency for improving the local environment is a demonstration of the need for local and regional

connectivity and alignment. The WDNR Urban Forests Division offers three tiers of grant

funding to support local initiatives:

Regular grants – to support new and/or innovative projects

Startup grants – for communities to start, or restart, urban forestry programs

Catastrophic Storm grants – to fund repair, removal, and replacement following a catastrophic event34

Working Well in Wisconsin The Wisconsin Urban Forestry Council (WUFC) has been integral in fostering partnerships and advancing implementation, as well as exploring the reciprocity of challenges and opportunities. Here, for example, is one matched set:

Challenge: Operating at the canopy level. “The DNR strategic direction shifts the urban forestry program focus to a ‘community canopy’ model. This task shifts the focus from the approximately 15% forest managed by municipalities to include the additional 85% privately controlled tree population. This represents a fundamental shift in scale and policy. The focus of scale is moving from local to regional, state, and multi-state scale.”

Opportunity: Creating a greater impact. “Operating at the canopy level will create a greater overall impact to our state. More than ever before the State will need to grow networks and partnerships at the regional, state and multi-state scale. Operating at this larger canopy scale will result in greater environmental benefits for all citizens and greater economic benefits for private sector small businesses.”

(WUCF 2013)

PART VI – CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION & MEASURING SUCCESS Page 49

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART VI – CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION & MEASURING SUCCESS

[Note: This portion of document under development by Targets & Metrics Workgroup.] Aim for these targets

In order to move toward a more sustainable urban forest, it’s important to periodically assess

your municipality’s performance on a number of criteria, or “targets.” As detailed below, those

targets are arranged in three categories:

1) Trees and Forest Vegetation 2) Community Framework 3) Resource Management Approach

In the material that follows, you’ll find a brief discussion of each target, including information

on how to evaluate your current status. The evaluation process involves measuring each target’s

key objective against four performance indicators – ranked Low, Fair, Good, and Optimal. Of

course, in practice, many things may not fit perfectly within each rating or you may not be able

to get the level of detailed data specified. In those cases, don’t get too hung up on precise

indicator metrics; rather, focus on the basic concept and the overall level of performance each

rating represents.

In conducting this evaluation, remember that the goal is to set a baseline position on each target,

in order to identify gaps as well as assets and areas of achievement. The evaluation process can

then be repeated periodically to track progress over time. While extensive, the process is

intended to be easily conducted, based on readily available information wherever possible. The

approach also allows for flexibility on goals and actions, and is intended for use by communities

of any size and in any location.

35

Category: Trees and Forest Vegetation

Targets: T1 – Relative tree canopy cover T2 – Age diversity (Size class distribution) T3 – Species diversity T4 – Species suitability T5 – Publicly owned trees (trees managed “intensively”) T6 – Publicly owned natural areas (trees managed “extensively”)

Acknowledgement: The targets and assessment method presented here are built upon the seminal work of James Clark and colleagues in 1997, as well as revisions made by Kenney et al in 2011. Specifics have been modified extensively throughout, and other targets have been added to the mix as well.

PART VI – CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION & MEASURING SUCCESS Page 50

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

T7 – Trees on private property T8 – Environmental justice and equity

Category: Community Framework

Targets: C1 – Municipal agency cooperation C2 – Involvement of large private and institutional landholders C3 – Green industry cooperation C4 – Citizen involvement and neighborhood action C5 – Cross-sector interaction C6 – General appreciation of trees as a community resource C7 – Regional collaboration

Category: Resource Management Approach

Targets: R1 – Tree inventory R2 – Canopy cover assessment R3 – Municipality-wide urban forest management plan R4 – Municipality-wide urban forest funding R5 – Municipal urban forestry staffing and training R6 – Tree establishment planning and implementation R7 – Planting site suitability R8 – Tree protection policy development and enforcement R9 – Maintenance of publicly owned, “intensively” managed trees R10 – Management of publicly owned natural areas R11 – Tree risk management R12 – Urban wood and green waste utilization R13 – Native vegetation

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 51

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Setting Priorities and Creating an Action Plan

After completing the comprehensive evaluation outlined in Part VI, there are decisions to be

made. To name a few:

What key components of a sustainable urban forest plan are you lacking?

Which gaps are worth the investment of time, money, and other resources that may be required to fill them?

What do you want to enhance or achieve?

What are your specific goals for tree benefits, or ecosystem services?

In the end, there is no defined straightforward path to a sustainable urban forest; rather, it’s one

that meanders with opportunities. That means you’ll need to stay nimble and work dynamically,

setting and then modifying prescribed strategies to suit your municipality’s needs and changing

circumstances. Several fundamental aspects of planning for the future are described in the

sections below: assessing risk, planning for change, and monitoring performance. All of those

areas will require ongoing attention – in order to revise the plan as needed over time.

[Note: Additional guidance to be developed by Targets & Metrics Workgroup.]

Assessing Risk and Planning for Change The urban forest exists in an environment that is undergoing constant change. Some of these

changes pose direct threats to the health of the urban forest and its ability to continue to provide

valuable benefits and services. The selected risks described below pose a particular threat or

challenge that should be considered when managing a sustainable urban forest.

Despite your best efforts, of course, bad things do happen to good people and their urban forests.

To improve your ability to bounce back from the inevitable setbacks, take care to engage the full

community as much and as often as possible in all your urban forestry efforts – during planning,

implementation, maintenance, monitoring, periodic reassessment, advocacy, celebration, every

step of the way. Time and again, involvement in urban greening has been shown to be one of the

most effective ways to build resilience into the social fabric that supports the urban forest and the

overall community in the aftermath of whatever disturbance may occur.36

Climate change

Climate change threatens the health of the urban forest by creating an environment that is less

hospitable to the plants and trees currently planted or naturally occurring in a given city. It will

be helpful to identify potential vulnerability by examining your current species diversity and

determining the adaptive capacity that your community has or needs in order to reduce impacts

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 52

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

from climate change.37

Because the impacts of climate change are not uniform across the

landscape, it may also be helpful to establish localized levels of risk and the rate at which

response will be necessary by utilizing tools such as USGS’s NEX-DCP30

(http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/nex-dcp30.asp), which generates county-level

projections of changes in temperature and precipitation, or NOAA’s U.S. Extreme Climate Index

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/ne/2c/01-12), which captures recent regional

trends.

It is important to recognize that while trees can play a role in mitigating the impacts of climate

change, they are also susceptible to its effects. New York City’s PlanNYC is a comprehensive

sustainability plan that includes tree planting and greening initiatives to help reduce the impacts

of increased temperatures and better manage stormwater

(http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/html/sustainability/sustainability.shtml). To help create an

urban forest that will be adaptable to future conditions it may be necessary to include forest

adaptability in design protocols and policy – for example, Solutions for Sustainable Urban Forest

Governance and Management

(http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/faculty/policy_briefs/fischer_mincey_solutions_sustainable_urba

n_forest_gov_mgmt.pdf) and Climate Change Adaptation Options for Toronto’s Urban Forest

(http://www.cleanairpartnership.org/pdf/climate_change_adaptation.pdf).

One of the key responses to climate change is to ensure that the next generations of trees are

adaptable to future conditions. Tools such as the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map

(http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/#) updated in 2012, the USDA Forest Service

Climate Change Tree Atlas (http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/tree/), and The ForeCast Project

(Forecasts of Climate-Associated Shifts in Tree Species;

http://www.geobabble.org/~hnw/global/treeranges3/climate_change/) can help identify species

whose ranges maybe shifting dramatically and identify potential replacements.

However, climate change occurs at broad scales over relatively long periods of time and its effect

on local, short-term weather and environment can be unpredictable. Best practices include

maintaining species and age diversity while increasing the number of trees appropriate for future

conditions. Proactive planning as recommended in Urban Forests: A Climate Adaptation Guide

(http://www.retooling.ca/_Library/docs/Urban_Forests_Guide.pdf) and the Template for

Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options (TACCIMO;

http://www.taccimo.sgcp.ncsu.edu/) can help ensure the long-term health of the urban forest,

enabling it to both adapt to climate change and continue to provide benefits that help mitigate the

effects of climate change on an urban population.

As part of the Climate Change Response Framework, a pilot project is now being developed in

the Chicago area to help urban communities assess the vulnerability of their forests and to

identify and develop tools to assist in the adaptation of urban forests to climate change. To learn

more about or become involved in the project, explore http://www.forestadaptation.org/urban.38

Sea level rise

Many urban centers are located along the coast; in fact, 23 of the 25 most populous U.S. counties

are considered costal.39

NOAA predicts with “…very high confidence that global mean sea level

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 53

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

will rise at least 0.2 meters and no more than 2.0 meters by 2100.”40

Such a rise in sea level has

the potential to inundate large amounts of urban forest.

Coastal communities can evaluate their level of vulnerability to sea level rise using tools such as

NOAA’s Sea Level Rise and Coast Flooding Viewer (http://coast.noaa.gov/slr/). The Nature

Conservancy’s Coastal Resilience project (http://www.coastalresilience.org/) also offers tools to

evaluate sea level rise around key urban areas including the ability to identify at-risk human

populations by social and economic factors as well as areas where conservation of current habitat

would be most beneficial. While it is possible to predict where sea level rise will threaten urban

forests, the ultimate impact is less certain. In many cases the urban forest lost to sea level rise

may represent a relatively small portion of a municipality’s overall area; however, coastal

forests, swamps, and other vegetation can play a key role in mitigating effects of stormwater

surge and protecting water quality. That’s why in coastal zones those “forest”-based water

resources are generally a key infrastructure consideration.

Best practices for mitigating the risks of sea level rise to urban forests can vary widely based on

the amount and type of forest likely to be affected. Low-lying coastal zones that are already

dealing with the threat of sea level rise demonstrate possible responses. For example, the

Virginia Beach Urban Forest Management Plan

(http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/parks-recreation/landscape-

management/Documents/2013-ufmp.pdf) identifies several strategies, including setting aside

space for new forests to offset losses, conserving forest migration land adjacent to currently

threatened forest, minimizing forest fragmentation, and special focus on maintenance and

expansion of healthy forest buffers.

Wildfire

Wildfire rates have increased due to historic management regimes, climate change, extreme

weather events, and large-scale tree mortality due to pests such as bark beetles. Along with

increased incidence of wildfire, human population growth around urban centers has increased the

exposure of urban forests and residents to the risks of wildfire. In the U.S. there are significant

efforts to assess and mitigate the risks of wildfire, although most of these efforts are not focused

on urban forests. However, municipalities in wildfire affected areas may have to consider the

impact of wildfires on urban infrastructure, including fouling drinking water sources, reducing

recreation opportunities, and impact on transportation corridors. In Colorado, the municipal

water supplier Denver Water has partnered with the US Forest Service to restore burned lands

and manage forests to minimize the size and impact of future wildfires

(http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/WaterSupply/PartnershipUSFS/).

There are a number of tools to assess long-term and short-term fire risk on a variety of scales

(e.g., www.wfas.net, www.coloradowildfirerisk.com and www.texaswildfirerisk.com).

Additionally, programs like Firewise Communities (http://www.firewise.org) provide tools and

examples of preventative planning for wildfire on scales from single homeowner to the

municipality. In managing urban forests for wildfire risk, focus efforts on fire prevention because

response following a wildfire will be focused on human and monetary impacts with the

rehabilitation of the urban forest lagging far behind.

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 54

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Pests, disease, and invasive plants

Urban trees are expected to be under increasing risk from all three of those threats. That’s due to

many factors, including increased globalization, increased wildland/urban interface, along with

increased tree stress and pest range expansion associated with climate change.41

Addressing the

risks from pests and diseases has the potential to keep pests out of the urban forest, reduce the

number of trees affected, and reduce costs associated with treatment and removal. Threats from

pests and diseases can be monitored at a range of scales. At large scales, the U.S. Forest Service

forest insect and disease reporting portal (http://foresthealth.fs.usda.gov/portal) along with the

ForWarn change detection system (http://forwarn.forestthreats.org/) provide many resources for

pest risk tracking. At more local scales, it can be useful to engage community groups and

engaged citizens to help identify new threats and monitor existing populations.

In recent decades a growing number of communities have been forced to address threats from

pests. In response, some communities and states have developed a “toolbox” to prepare and

respond to forest pests (e.g., in Vermont, http://www.vtinvasives.org/tree-

pests/communitypreparedness/toolbox, and in Wisconsin,

http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/urbanforests/eabtoolbox.html). Such toolboxes can help facilitate a rapid

response to pests and diseases and are readily adaptable for specific communities and threats.

Natural lifecycle changes

To ensure a healthy urban forest, it is necessary to consider the age distribution of a community’s

trees. As large older trees succumb to age, disease, and decay, they must be replaced. A newly

planted tree would require decades before approaching a comparable size and level of benefits.

The greatest risk associated with the natural life cycle of trees arises when a population is

dominated by trees of a similar age likely to die at a similar time. This issue has become more

prominent in recent years with large-scale tree planting campaigns juxtaposed against the

increasing evidence of the importance of large trees.42

Conducting and maintaining a tree

inventory is the best way to monitor and plan for the risks associated with the natural life cycles

of trees.

Budget cycles and other economic considerations

Budgets for urban forest management can be affected by a diverse set of factors including

macro-economic conditions, local budgetary priorities, changes in community support, and

changes in elected leadership. Predicting changes in these factors is generally not possible;

however, it is still necessary to prepare for such changes especially during periods of adequate

funding.

In order to be able to adapt to budgetary cycles, start with a realistic budget that includes all the

costs of managing an urban forest. Local or state urban forest coordinators can offer tools and

assistance to build an urban forest management budget (e.g.,

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu/freepubs/pdfs/uh114.pdf). While the goal of many urban forest advocates

is to increase the amount of urban tree canopy cover, it must be recognized that additional trees

come with additional costs for maintenance and management. Failing to plan for future

maintenance costs results in increased tree mortality as well as increased safety concerns when

resources are lacking to properly manage trees in decline.43

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 55

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

In order to maintain a vibrant urban forest under changing budgetary conditions, it’s important to

prioritize staff resources and actions to ensure that the forest is well managed in lean times. And

of course, diversifying funding sources can help minimize the impacts of funding cuts in any one

source.44

Changing demographics

Among the most important factors influencing the urban forest in any community are the humans

who reside there. The latest U.S. census indicates a 12.1percent increase in the urban population

The Financially Stable Sustainable Urban Forest

“Urban forestry makes economic sense. Consequently, there is no reason not to put it on a sound financial footing. In the past, many tree programs have been viewed (and many still are) as cost centers, and the goal was to hold costs down while recognizing that such programs were politically popular because of their aesthetic value. The movement toward quantifying the economic benefits of trees at all levels (direct economic benefits but also indirect savings from environmental, health, and psychological benefits) suggests an entirely different model focused on trees as a wise public investment strategy—and through this lens, as a profit center. …

“Most urban forestry programs will probably always rely heavily on general fund allocations, but other options exist that can provide a revenue stream more clearly dedicated to the stewardship and management of urban forests.”

– “Planning the Urban Forest,” American Planning Association (2009)

Some examples of creative funding

Capital improvement plan fund derived from real estate taxes and utility taxes. Municipal portion of state motor fuel tax. Fines – for example, on motorists who damage trees in accidents. Entrepreneurial activities – such as the self-supporting yard waste recycling

center in Urbana, Illinois, which sells compost back to property owners. Donations for tree preservation funds. Partnering with nonprofit organizations to supplement tree funding – such as

the Sacramento Tree Foundation, which receives funding from the Municipal Utility District.

Development fees (including impact fees where legal) related to permit processing and enforcement – ideally written into zoning, subdivision, and landscaping codes, and then dedicated to benefit new development or redevelopment areas.

Revenue from a tax increment financing district allocated to urban forestry improvements, which add proven value to new economic development.

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 56

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

from 2000 to 2010.45

To best understand how changing demographics affect the urban forest,

you need to look at the conditions of your own municipality.

Some cities such as New Orleans and Detroit, experienced large decreases in population over the

last decade. Such population decreases represent both opportunity and challenge for urban forest

management. Increased vacancy rates and abandoned housing may provide space for increasing

forested areas. However, without management it is possible that such areas may become

dominated by undesirable species and may ultimately create safety issues, unwanted change in

species composition, and a pathway for pests, disease, and invasive species. Managing large

tracts of new urban forest can also strain budgets at times that the tax base is decreasing.

Conversely, many communities are experiencing urban population growth, which can provide

both additional resources and additional demands for urban forests. Increasing populations can

lead to development pressures and decreasing physical space for the urban forest. In addition,

many municipalities are experiencing demographic shifts in race and ethnicity. Social and

cultural norms can impact the way various groups react to and treat the urban forest.

Evaluating the impacts of changing demographics begins with an understanding of how

demographics are changing locally. Much of this information is readily available from the U.S.

Census and local sources for any community. Adapting the urban forest to best serve a changing

community may require changes in the spatial distribution of the urban forest and prioritization

of tree management tasks. Outreach and education can help inform the public about the role of

the urban forest and how they can help unsure a vibrant and beneficial forest resource for their

city.

(See sidebar [BELOW].)

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 57

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Monitoring for Urban Forest Change and Program Performance Monitoring is a key element of sustainable urban forest management. As suggested by Clark and

colleagues,46

assessing the urban forest resource for sustainability entails “collect[ing]

information about the urban forest on a routine basis.” This is more than a static “snapshot”

inventory. A single, static inventory can be used to understand structure and function at a given

point in time, but can quickly become outdated in a dynamic urban landscape. Systematic

repeated inventories can serve as a city tree census. Similar to the U.S. Census which tracks

changes in the human population, a city tree census can be used to describe and predict patterns

in the urban forest over time. Indeed, recognizing the value of long-term field data, many

municipal arborists and urban greening nonprofits are already engaged in monitoring.47

Taking No Chances with Risks

New and unforeseen changes will inevitably emerge that threaten the health of the urban forest and its ability to provide benefits and ecosystem services. There are a wide variety of risks and changes that are already impacting the urban forest. In many cases, while the changes and risks are diverse, there are some common tools that can be used to improve the response to change and the resiliency of the urban forest.

The following principles can help identify and manage the risks to the urban forest:

1. Know your urban forest resource. Conducting a forest inventory will allow you to determine the extent and make-up of your urban forest and related susceptibility to risk. A forest inventory provides the baseline data for planning and management.

2. Understand your human capital. Establish the network of available experts, on-the-ground practitioners, and volunteer organizations you can draw on to determine the types of changes occurring in your urban forest, how best to respond to them, and how to mobilize people to enact your plans.

3. Manage your money. Lack of adequate funding not only reduces your ability to manage your urban forest but it also reduces your ability to respond to risk. A realistic urban forest budget must include realistic planning for the maintenance and management of existing forest as well as planned expansion of the forest resource. Urban forest managers can also help minimize funding shortages and obtain funds to combat specific risks by searching for a diversity of funding sources.

4. Establish a diverse and healthy forest. Maximizing the species, age, and spatial diversity of your urban forest can minimize the portion of the forest at risk to any one agent. Expenditures on improving forest health can help minimize susceptibility to risk. Both health and diversity increase forest resiliency and ensure that even in the face of increasing risk a vibrant urban forest can be maintained.

5. Think locally. Broad principles can be a good starting point, but be sure to consider uniquely local risks and seek out the resources to address them.

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 58

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Why monitor

Monitoring can serve several management goals, including:

Evaluating planting program performance. Tracking trees planted through a particular

program can yield information about growth, survival, and maintenance, and suggest

areas for program enhancement. For example, New York City Parks & Recreation

collected data on street tree survival in relation to biological, social, and stewardship

variables.48

Engaging local communities. Field data collection for urban tree monitoring can be an

excellent way to engage volunteers and local residents in urban forestry, or to provide

actionable feedback to those who maintain trees. For example, some nonprofits recruit

volunteers for tree-tracking field work, including Friends of the Urban Forest (San

Francisco, CA) and Canopy (Palo Alto, CA). More municipalities should take advantage

of such opportunities to extend that sort of training and collaboration with community

volunteers.49

Tracking population life cycles and managing tree risk. This is especially relevant for

the public street tree environment, which requires removals of aging and hazardous trees.

Repeated street tree inventories can be accomplished with a regular pruning cycle (for

example, prune a set portion of the town’s street trees each year, and update the inventory

with tree growth and mortality data at the same time). This kind of systematic inventory

cycle ensures that records are up-to-date and allows for analysis of mortality and tree risk

data.

Detecting emerging threats from pests and diseases. Monitoring for tree pests and

diseases in the urban environment can provide valuable early warnings about threats to

both urban and natural forest systems. Field methods designed for pest detection and tree

health monitoring are under development by the Healthy Trees, Healthy Cities initiative

of The Nature Conservancy (http://healthytreeshealthycities.org/). There is also an i-Tree module for recording pest detection data (http://pest.itreetools.org). [Other sources tbd]

Assessing progress towards canopy cover goals. Repeated canopy assessments allow for

evaluation of canopy cover change, which can demonstrate the extent to which canopy

cover goals are being met, or identify patterns related to canopy cover change. For

example, recent studies of canopy cover change in New York City50

and Massachusetts51

describe factors related to canopy losses and gains.

Each of the above goals has associated data inputs, and it is essential to link your particular

monitoring goals to data collection strategies. Neglecting to articulate up front clear monitoring

objectives, plans for data analysis, and ways you intend to use the information can lead to the

“data-rich but information-poor” scenario of environmental monitoring52

in which analysts

become “snowed by a blizzard of ecological details”.53

As an example of appropriate linkages between goals and methods, a neighborhood planting

program seeking to understand establishment-phase losses, and potential program alterations for

enhanced survival, could monitor mortality and stewardship of recently planted trees. For that

objective, additional field variables besides survival and maintenance should be used sparingly,

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 59

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

especially if volunteers or interns with little prior experience are collecting the data. In another

example, a municipality seeking to assess progress made toward desired canopy cover goals, and

also concerned about invasive pests and diseases, could document change through LiDAR or

aerial photography, coupled with random plot data for tree pest detection.

A multifaceted monitoring approach might employ several goals and methods in tandem. The

state of Wisconsin is doing just that, using three levels of data to optimize management: plot-

based field monitoring using the Urban Forest Inventory & Analysis (UFIA) system of the U.S.

Forest Service,54

remote sensing data to evaluate canopy, and aggregated tree inventory data

from many municipalities. UFIA is the urban expansion of ongoing forest inventories and

monitoring across the U.S. through a national plot system, which until recently was limited to

non-urban areas. UFIA shares many variables with the i-Tree Eco method.

Ways to monitor

As discussed in Part IV, Gathering the Information, there are two distinct ways to gather urban

forest monitoring data: bottom-up (field-based) and top-down (canopy cover assessments). Top-

down monitoring is typically employed when managers want a city-, county-, or state-wide

perspective on tree canopy cover and distribution. The urban tree canopy (UTC) assessment

method utilizes LiDAR to produce a spatially explicit map of tree canopy cover. Aerial

photointerpretation can also document change over time, based on a sample of points across the

city. This method has been used to document canopy loss in 11 U.S. cities.55

The canopy change

studies from New York City and Massachusetts previously mentioned used Landsat imagery.56

Repeated canopy assessments can assist managers evaluating progress towards canopy cover

goals.

Field-based monitoring requires trained crews and potentially substantial staff time, but can

provide detailed information on tree condition, site characteristics, and maintenance. Within

field-based methods, there are several options. A tree census approach can be used for

systematic repeated inventories, such as repeated street tree inventories or plot-based inventories.

In contrast, a planting cohort monitoring approach is for tracking trees planted or distributed

through a specific program. The term “cohort” refers to the collection of trees planted around the

same time, and a program may wish to track a sample of trees planted each year.

A framework for field-based monitoring has been developed by the Urban Tree Growth &

Longevity (UTGL) Working Group (www.urbantreegrowth.org), a network of researchers and

practitioners that is affiliated with the International Society of Arboriculture, Arboriculture

Research & Education Academy. A committee of researchers, municipal arborists, nonprofit

leaders, and students devised a framework of monitoring protocols designed to be customized

based on manager needs and available staffing (see Figure 1). These protocols are intended to

generate data to evaluate trends in tree growth, mortality, and longevity. There is a minimum

data set with the core variables necessary for any long-term monitoring project – such as tree

location, species, and diameter at breast height. The field guide for the minimum data set is

designed for novice users, such as minimally trained interns and volunteers. Supplemental data

sets can provide greater detail in four areas: Tree, Site, Management, and Community. These

supplemental data sets should be employed only when more highly trained staff and program

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 60

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

resources are available. The minimum data set was pilot tested in summer 2014 to evaluate

consistency and error rates across field crews of varying experience levels. Additional resources

for field-based monitoring are listed in the “Resources for Field-based Monitoring” sidebar

below.

Figure 1. Framework and data sets for field-based urban tree monitoring developed by the Urban Tree Growth & Longevity (UTGL) Working Group.

Linking monitoring to community outreach

For urban forestry organizations that plant trees, monitoring may go hand in hand with ongoing

community outreach and stewardship. Some nonprofit tree planting programs utilize pruning

clubs and tree steward programs to maintain young trees, and these maintenance actions can be

done in tandem with data collection.57

By serving as field crews, local residents become citizen

scientists who contribute to knowledge production in the urban forest. Using volunteer or

neighborhood-based citizen scientists can also increase environmental awareness and create a

more informed constituency.58

For trees along streets and in front yards, observed maintenance

issues by citizen scientists can be used to create “report cards” for each property with feedback

on tree condition and recommendations for improved stewardship. Citizen science has been

successfully used for ecological monitoring in areas ranging from ornithology (www.ebird.org)

to plant phenology (www.usanpn.org). With appropriate training and quality control measures,

urban foresters can also effectively utilize citizen scientists.

Planning ahead for data management and analysis

Advance data management planning is extremely important for any successful monitoring

initiative, as data integrity and locational accuracy from baseline inventories and planting records

are essential. Problems can arise when baseline data are insufficient for monitoring purposes. For

example, an organization seeking to track mortality and growth uses planting records from years

past, but finds that location was only recorded in terms of address, lacking tree identification

tags, site maps, or GPS coordinates to distinguish multiple trees at the same property. In another

PART VII – DEVELOPING & IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN Page 61

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

example, a municipality used random plots throughout the city to evaluate urban forest structure

and ecosystem services using the i-Tree Eco model, and later wanted to revisit those plots to

evaluate change. However, because plot centers were not permanently referenced, field crews

could not reliably draw identical plot boundaries over the original plot locations. Another issue

that can arise is difficulty linking monitoring data tree-by-tree over time: Sometimes two or more

discrete inventories did not have unique tree identification numbers to facilitate connecting data

at the level of the individual tree. These issues can be avoided, but they require foresight at the

initial data collection stage (e.g., planting list, first plot measurements, utilizing unique tree

identification numbers) to ensure that monitoring goes smoothly.

Plans for data analysis should also be articulated at the beginning of a monitoring project. Some

assessments can be done with program staff, such as summarizing mortality rates by

neighborhood, species, and length of time after planting. However, for more advanced statistical

analysis, it is often helpful to partner with university students, professors, and U.S. Forest

Service researchers. Projects to collect and analyze urban forest monitoring data with a local

partner can be very appealing to thesis students at the undergraduate, masters, or doctoral levels.

Researchers can also advise on appropriate sample design and sample size to address monitoring

study objectives. These kinds of collaborations can yield scientifically rigorous analysis to assess

program performance and identify areas for improvement. Examples of such collaborations

include analysis of survival and growth in planting initiatives from Florida (Koeser et al. 2014)

and Indianapolis (Vogt et al. 2015), as well as tree giveaway program in Sacramento, California

(Roman et al. 2014).59

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES Page 62

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES The following resources match the list of “Key Ingredients” outlined in Part IV, Gathering the Information. Refer to that section for brief descriptions of each category where needed.

Plans, Practices, Programs, and Policies:

Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP):

o Nationwide – i-Tree Assessment Reports, USDA Forest Service http://www.itreetools.org/resources/reports.php

o Ann Arbor, MI – “Urban & Community Forest Management Plan” (2014) http://www.a2gov.org/departments/field-operations/forestry/Pages/UFMP.aspx

o Austin, TX – “Austin’s Urban Forest Plan: A Master Plan for Public Property” (2014) http://austintexas.gov/page/urban-forest-plan60

o California Urban Forests Council and Inland Urban Forest Council – “Urban Forest Management Plan Toolkit” http://ufmptoolkit.com

o Charlottesville, VA – “Urban Forest Management Plan” (2009) http://www.charlottesville.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=13979

o Grand Rapids, MI – “Urban Forestry Plan” (2009) http://grcity.us/public-services/Parks-Recreation-Forestry/Documents/Grand%20Rapids%20Urban%20Forest%20Plan%202009.pdf

o New York, NY – “Urban Forest Management Plans for NYC Communities and Parks” (2004-07) http://www.nycgovparks.org/trees (Scroll down to list at bottom of page.)

o Phoenix, AZ – “Tree and Shade Master Plan” (2010) https://www.phoenix.gov/parkssite/Documents/071957.pdf

o Pittsburgh, PA – “Urban Forest Master Plan” (2013) http://treepittsburgh.org/urban-forest-master-plan

o Portland, OR – “Urban Forest Management Plan” (2004) and “Urban Forest Action Plan” (2007) https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/60402

o Santa Monica, CA – “Urban Forest Master Plan” (2011) http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Portals/UrbanForest/Handout%206%20-%20Urban%20Forest%20Master%20Plan.pdf

o Seattle, WA – “Urban Forest Management Plan” (2007) http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/Final_UFMP.pdf

o Vancouver, WA – “Urban Forestry Management Plan” (2007) http://www.mrsc.org/govdocs/v35urbforestplan.pdf

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES Page 63

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Maintenance plans for street trees and other public trees:

o Bloomington, IN – “Tree Care Manual: A Manual for the Care of Public Trees” (2012) http://issuu.com/bloomingtonparks/docs/tree_care_manual_2nd_edition_feb_2012

o New York, NY – “Tree Services” http://www.nycgovparks.org/services/forestry

o Oconomowoc, WI – “Tree Care and Maintenance” http://www.oconomowoc-wi.gov/index.aspx?nid=556

o U.S. Forest Service Northeastern Area – “Sample Urban & Community Forest Management Plan & Guidebook” (1998) http://www.na.fs.fed.us/urban/inforesources/mgmtplanguide/mgmtplanguide.shtml

o Waxhaw, NC – “Tree Management and Maintenance: A Plan for the Town of Waxhaw’s Public Trees for 2010-12” http://www.waxhaw.com/DocumentCenter/View/57

Natural areas management plans:

o Charlottesville, VA – “Invasive Plant Inventory” and “Invasive Species Removal Methods” (2007) http://www.charlottesville.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=13978 http://www.charlottesville.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=13975

o Louisville, KY – “Jefferson Memorial Forest Master Plan” (2009) http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C7D19169-5C61-4E99-8FF2-E9723E067AFB/0/JeffersonMemorialForestMP200resJuly09.pdf

o New York, NY – “Biodiversity Assessment Handbook for New York City” (2013) http://www.amnh.org/our-research/center-for-biodiversity-conservation/publications/general-interest/biodiversity-assessment-handbook-for-new-york-city

o New York, NY – “Social Assessment of Parks and Natural Areas” (tbd)

o Philadelphia, PA – “Parkland Forest Management Framework” (2013) http://www.phila.gov/ParksandRecreation/PDF/PPR_Parkland_Forest_Mgmt_Framework.pdf

Regional plans:

o Chicago, IL – “GO TO 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan” (2010), Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/about/2040/

o Chicago, IL – “Chicago Region Trees Initiative – Case Statement,” Morton Arboretum http://www.linktbd

o Philadelphia and Delaware County, PA – “Baltimore Avenue Corridor Revitalization Plan” (2007), Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/07051A.pdf

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES Page 64

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

Relevant previous or historic plans:

o New York, NY – “A Street Tree System for New York City” (1916) http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/121416#page/11/mode/1up

o Philadelphia, PA – “Directions for the Planting and Care of Street Trees” (1913) https://archive.org/stream/directionsforpla00fair#page/n27/mode/2up

Community tree programs:

o Nationwide – “NeighborWoods Program,” Alliance for Community Trees http://neighborwoodsmonth.org

o Atlanta, GA – Trees Atlanta http://treesatlanta.org

o Chicago, IL – Chicago Region Trees Initiative http://www.mortonarb.org/science-conservation/chicago-region-trees-initiative

o Chicago, IL – “Community Trees Program,” The Morton Arboretum http://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/community-trees-program

o Philadelphia, PA – Philly Tree People http://phillytreepeople.org/

o Philadelphia, PA – “PHS Tree Tenders,” Pennsylvania Horticultural Society http://phsonline.org/greening/tree-tenders

o Philadelphia, PA – “Cooperative Community Greening,” UC Green http://ucgreen.org/

o Pittsburgh, PA – TreePittsburgh http://treepittsburgh.org

o Sacramento, CA – “Community Shade Program,” Sacramento Tree Foundation http://sactree.com/communityshade

o Seattle, WA – “Urban Forest Stewardship Plan” (2013) http://www.seattle.gov/trees/docs/2013%20Urban%20Fores%20Stewardship%20Plan%20091113.pdf

o Vancouver, WA – “NeighborWoods Stewards Program” http://www.cityofvancouver.us/publicworks/page/neighborwoods-stewards-program

Private property tree programs:

o Baltimore, MD – “Tree Keepers,” Tree Baltimore http://treebaltimore.org/get-a-free-tree/

o New York, NY – New York Restoration Project and MillionTreesNYC http://www.nyrp.org/Greening_Sustainability/MillionTreesNYC/Tree_Giveaways

o Philadelphia, PA – “TreePhilly Program,” Philadelphia Parks & Recreation http://treephilly.org/

o San Jose, CA – Our City Forest http://www.ourcityforest.org/programs

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES Page 65

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

o Washington, DC – Casey Trees http://caseytrees.org/programs/planting/rebate/

Educational materials, promotion and outreach:

o Nationwide – “tbd” (DATE), Arbor Day Foundation http://linktbd

o Nationwide – “Urban and Community Forestry – Outreach Services Strategies for All Communities” (2003), Alliance for Community Trees http://actrees.org/files/What_We_Do/OutreachStrategies.pdf

o Nationwide – “Healthy Trees, Healthy Cities,” The Nature Conservancy http://healthytreeshealthycities.org/training-resources

o Nationwide – “Trees Are the Key” (2013), Vibrant Communities & Urban Forests http://treesarethekey.org/trees-are-the-key-online-toolkit/

o Nationwide – “Tree Owner Information,” International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/treecareinfo.aspx

o Nationwide – Urban and Community Forestry, USDA Forest Service http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/

o Nationwide – “tbd” (DATE), Missouri’s Trees Work http://linktbd

o Ann Arbor, MI – “Benefits of Urban Forests” and “What’s Wrong with My Tree?” http://www.a2gov.org/departments/field-operations/forestry/Pages/UrbanForestBenefits.aspx http://www.a2gov.org/departments/field-operations/forestry/Pages/tree%20care.aspx

o Baltimore, MD – “How to Plant a Tree,” Tree Baltimore http://treebaltimore.org/how-to-plant/

o Chicago, IL – “Retrofitting Large Landscapes for Sustainability” (2014), The Morton Arboretum http://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/community-trees-program/community-tree-resources/sustainable-large-landscapes

o Chicago, IL – “Selecting and Planting Trees” (2015), The Morton Arboretum http://www.mortonarb.org/

o Chicago, IL – “Tree Tools” (2012-2015), The Morton Arboretum http://www.mortonarb.org/treetools

o Chicago, IL – “Landowner’s Guide: Ravine and Tableland Preservation” (2013), Openlands http://www.greatlakes.org/document.doc?id=1380

o Oakland, CA – “Urban Forest Education & Stewardship Training Program” (2014), Urban ReLeaf http://www.urbanreleaf.org/our-programs/ufest-program

o New York, NY – MillionTreesNYC http://linktbd

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES Page 66

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

o Philadelphia, PA – “PHS Tree Tenders,” Pennsylvania Horticultural Society http://pennhort.libguides.com/content.php?pid=138497&sid=1185152

o Vancouver, WA – “Benefits of Trees” http://www.cityofvancouver.us/publicworks/page/benefits-trees

o Washington, DC – Casey Trees http://caseytrees.org/programs/education/curriculum/

Municipal urban forestry policies:

o Nationwide – “Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: Ordinances, Regulations, & Public Policies,” American Public Works Association https://www2.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry-3.pdf

o Nationwide – “Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances” (2001), International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) http://www.isa-arbor.com/education/onlineResources/treeOrdinanceGuidelines.aspx

o Ann Arbor, MI – “Trees and Development” (2013) http://www.a2gov.org/departments/field-operations/forestry/Pages/StreetTreesDevelopment.aspx

o Charlottesville, VA – “Best Management Practices for Tree Preservation, Transplanting and Removal” (2009) http://www.charlottesville.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=20614

o Culver City, CA – “Approved Street Tree Master Plan Criteria, Policies and Implementation Guide” (2002) http://www.culvercity.org/~/media/Files/PW/STMPGuidelines%20pdf.ashx

o Northbrook, IL – “Tree Protection and Preservation, Vegetation” (1999) https://www.municode.com/library/#!/il/northbrook/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCO_CH25TRPRPRVE

o San Francisco, CA – “Tree Maintenance Transfer Plan” (2014) http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1478

o Vancouver, WA – “Tree Permits” and “Heritage Trees” http://www.cityofvancouver.us/publicworks/page/tree-permits-0 http://www.cityofvancouver.us/publicworks/page/heritage-trees

o Georgia – “Tree Ordinance Development Guidebook” (2005) http://www.gatrees.org/community-forests/planning-policy/tree-ordinances/2005TreeOrdinance-100.pdf

Municipal tree board/shade tree commission:

o Charlottesville, VA – Tree Commission http://www.charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=3298

o Santa Monica, CA – Urban Forest Task Force http://www.smgov.net/Portals/UrbanForest/content.aspx?id=16692

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES Page 67

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

o Vancouver, WA – Urban Forestry Commission http://www.cityofvancouver.us/publicworks/page/urban-forestry-commission

Municipal urban forest budget:

o Nationwide – “Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: Budgeting and Funding,” American Public Works Association https://www2.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry-1.pdf

o Charlottesville, VA – “Invasive Plant Inventory Budget” (2007) http://www.charlottesville.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=17772

Municipal urban forest staff:

o Nationwide – “Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: Staffing,” American Public Works Association https://www2.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry-2.pdf

Green jobs training:

o Detroit, MI – “Greening of Detroit,” tbd http://linktbd

o Philadelphia, PA – “Tree Keepers,” Philadelphia Parks & Recreation http://treephilly.org/treekeepers/

o Philadelphia, PA – “Roots to Re-Entry,” Pennsylvania Horticultural Society http://phsonline.org/greening/roots-to-re-entry

o University of Oregon – “A Quick Guide for Creating High-Quality Jobs through Restoration on National Forests” (2012), Ecosystem Workforce Program http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WCF_JobCreation_QG.pdf

Agroforestry / Trees for food:

o Alliance for Community Trees – “Community Groves Guidebook” (2013) http://actrees.org/files/Publications/community_groves_guidebook.pdf

Urban & Community Forestry:

o Alliance for Community Trees – State guide for urban and community forestry contacts and resources http://actrees.org/resources/local-resources/whos-who-in-your-state/

Databases and Other Information:

Comprehensive list of stakeholders:

o Ann Arbor, MI – “Urban Forest Management Plan – Public Engagement Plan Summary” (2011)

APPENDIX A – RESOURCES Page 68

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

http://www.a2gov.org/departments/field-operations/forestry/Documents/Urban%20Forestry%20Management%20Plan/PEPsummary.pdf

o Select cities – “STEW-MAP: Stewardship Mapping & Assessment Project” http://www.stewmap.net/

Funding sources:

o Nationwide – “Donors Forum,” tbd http://donorsforum.org/

o Nationwide – “Fundraising Tools for Nonprofits,” Alliance for Community Trees http://actrees.org/resources/tools-for-nonprofits/fundraising-tools-for-nonprofits/

o Nationwide – “Urban & Community Challenge Cost Share Grants,” National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC), USDA Forest Service http://www.fs.fed.us/ucf/nucfac.html

o Nationwide – “Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: Budgeting and Funding,” American Public Works Association https://www2.apwa.net/Documents/About/CoopAgreements/UrbanForestry/UrbanForestry-1.pdf

o Nationwide – Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA), U.S. Government https://www.cfda.gov/

o Nationwide – Foundation Directory Online, Foundation Center http://www.foundationcenter.org/

o Chicago, IL – ComEd Green Region Program, Openlands http://www.openlands.org/greenregion

o University of North Carolina – “Financing Urban Forestry” (2013), Environmental Finance Center http://efc.web.unc.edu/2013/08/09/financing-urban-forestry/

o San Francisco, CA – “Financing San Francisco’s Urban Forest” (2013) http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/plans-and-programs/planning-for-the-city/urban-forest-plan/UFP_Financing_Study_Exec_Sum_131216.pdf

Maps: (tbd)

Citywide urban forest GIS:

o Grand Rapids, MI – “Urban Forest Ecological Services Assessment” (2008) http://grcity.us/public-services/Parks-Recreation-Forestry/Documents/Grand%20Rapids%20Urban%20Forest%20Ecological%20Services%20Assessment%202008.pdf

ENDNOTES

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

ENDNOTES

M. Leff (3/22/15 v5)

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60